Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: RTVapor on August 31, 2005, 05:49:28 PM
-
Hey has anyone ever requested a B-29 Super Fortress??? I mean I would spend bomber perks on that.:D :aok
-
Also y don't we have any recon planes like a PBY or something like that, and we could use a Japanese Heavy bomber. Like the Ki. 21 'Sally'.
-
No your not getting nukes
LOL
-
zOMFG!@!!#@ He opened the can of worms!#!@#!
By Furball:
(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/superdud/71_1092865843_b29.jpg)
swQUAHk@#!##!one1!1!! No0kiEs BLAHHH$@one!121!@ nOokIeS1!#!@$ BiG B00)ooO0O0)MMM!@$132!(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/superdud/hot.gif)
And...I'm.....spent!
Sorry Dred, I just go into fits when I hear B29 and nookie! It's Vapors fault!
-
:rofl I never said I wanted nukes :rofl
Hey I want that smiley that SuperDud has. . . . .thats cool:aok
-
those have already been requested
-
It's been requested over and over and over and over and over (etc) again Vapor. Who knows, some day maybe.
Believe HT has said NO NUKES though, thankfully although I do admit it would be fun to drop one of those and see a large field go boom.
-
Originally posted by Wilbus
Believe HT has said NO NUKES though...
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!@!#!@##(http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/superdud/saddy.gif) (http://www.furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/superdud/fuming.gif)
-
If we can't have a B-29 I would at least want a B-25 w/the 50 cal MG in the nose(used for strafing in the pacific).
-
He111, Ju52, halifax, betty,Pe2, Sm79, Fw 200 condor..........need I go on?
-
HEY@!@! WE REALLY NEED THE B29! WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DROP ALL THE FH AT A FIELD IN A SINGLE PASS, RATHER THAN JUST 2.
"WlN ZE W@R!"
(I feel like Furball, someone shoot me) :)
-
Originally posted by RTVapor
Hey has anyone ever requested a B-29 Super Fortress??? I mean I would spend bomber perks on that.:D :aok
No?!?! what a fantastic idea!!!!!!
why didnt anyone ever think of this before!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
Yeah we should have nooks. Make it 1000 persk points and make the bomb so big it will reset the arena.
Then we could get rid of pizza map by nooking it away.
-
Bwahahahahah....I love you guys!
-
One issue with the B-29 (and the A-26 Invader) is the remotely sighted gun turrets. They'd need some sort of ranging input for the gun sight for them to be modelled fairly. That would mean more code to be written and the turret system play tested.
-
You just HAD to be scientific didnt u?
-
I would spend a couple K of my bomber perks at a time for 1 down sized nuke that would blast the town to ashes.
Now wouldnt that be interesting if someone shot you down on the way to target:huh
Think of the cursing you fighter guys could cause :lol
-
ME WANT No0KIE T0!!!!!
(http://furballunderground.com/blueknights_pictures/userfiles/Furball/nookie.gif)
-
LMAO Hub !!!!!:lol :rofl :lol :rofl :aok
NO NUKES NO NUKES NO NUKES\
FUNGI
-
roflmao:rofl :rofl :rofl
but really we doo need b29s but no nukes
-
We don't need them for a while though. Right now we are set on ETO ToD planes, when PTO rolls around it will become a higher priority
-
All that I can say about hub's little annimation is. . . . . . ]
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl :lol :rofl :lol :D :rofl
-
hub you suck, you draw like a 7 year old girl.
-
Originally posted by Raptor01
We don't need them for a while though. Right now we are set on ETO ToD planes, when PTO rolls around it will become a higher priority
I've got one other concern: B29 is way cool, but its performance and capacity so far outdo every other platform in the game that I'm afraid the play balance could be thrown off.
I mean, a trio of those with a capable gunner could take down all hangars at even a couple fields with no problem -- and be terribly hard for the average buff killer to neutralize. Altitide, speed, guns, capacity all would puch the limits of countermeasure capability.
While vets with good technique could probably handle attacking the Superfortress OK, those vets tend not to buff hunt as much as look for a good fighter v fighter combat -- es[pecially if the buff hunt involves long climb before engagement even possible.
The B29 has the potential to radically change the MA environment, shifting the balance toward buffs at the expense of other play styles. We ought to be very careful what we wish for.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
Bwahahahahah....I love you guys!
No, you can't have my Bud Light.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
No, you can't have my Bud Light.
ack-ack
No B29 + no beer = :(
-
I wouldn't count on the invincibility of B-29s given the availability of Me-262s and 163s in the arena. Getting up to 30K might stop some of the lesser japanese rides, but there are plenty of luftwaffe rides that will run right up to sub-orbit with the superforts.
EagleDNY
-
Why would anyone climb to 30k with a B-29?? That would take..what...30 minutes?
Gotta get trough the spit-deck first though
-
Originally posted by Delirium
HEY@!@! WE REALLY NEED THE B29! WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DROP ALL THE FH AT A FIELD IN A SINGLE PASS, RATHER THAN JUST 2.
"WlN ZE W@R!"
(I feel like Furball, someone shoot me) :)
It's already possible to drop all (meduim field) hangers in one pass.
-
One of the big problems the B-29 presented to the Japanese was that fact it was extremely difficult for their planes to intercept the superforts due to the high altitude and high speed at which they traveled. Only a few Japanese rides could get up that high and have enough speed to intercept a superfort.
In the MA, even if you climb up to 30K in a superfort, my point is that there are plenty of rides available that can climb up that high and get a successful interception. It might finally give the Ta-152 something to do!
EagleDNY
-
In the MA, even if you climb up to 30K in a superfort, my point is that there are plenty of rides available that can climb up that high and get a successful interception. It might finally give the Ta-152 something to do!
Moin
i agree B29 isnt so good, she can only climp to 31k and made 370mph at this alt so she is catchable for all late war plans i think.
so bring it in i want to hunt it please :-).
cu chris3
-
I can see it now.. All those dive bombing 29's to kill the cv.. oh yes
-
It would be all b-29s all the time.
and if you give it to them, they just want the excuse for the n00k.
wah we cant do anything with our bomber perks wahhhh!
a map would pop up, there would be a flurry of flashes as 245 n00ks go off simultaniously, map would go down.
Then the toolshed killers would say wahhh! we want kills of guys who are in towers with our other 25 prox kills everytime we suicide n00k!
-
Nukes would be hilarious. First perk the B-29. Then let a buffer drop a nuke on a capped airfield and watch him lose the perks because of killshooter.
Glove
-
Perhaps with the B-29 we could enable 163's at all large fields as a counter measure.
-
No. You can not enable 163 at all fields. That's just too much. This would get abused.
I would allow though, for it to be put on 3-4 more fields.
-
oh joy,whoever isnt in a b-twentyn00k is in a little bat plane zipping around everywhere, until like clockwork, 5 mn later
245 flashs, and everyones dead. map resets
-
Having the B-29 and something else to do with all those bomber perks is (IMHO) a good idea. Suicide dweebs will still take B-24s and Lancs on their CV runs - why pay when you can dweeb-it for free?
The B-29 will by no means be invincible - frankly, I think it will be a huge hunk of easy meat until it gets high up and you have to do a tail chase to catch it. Down low, I think it gets torn up just like a Lanc.
If it becomes available, I'll give it a tryout. It might be fun to see if we can actually do some strategic bombing in this game.
EagleDNY
-
20mm's in the tail may make it a less than easy mark ;-)
-
Well, for the first week or so it will be used heavily. That is while people burn their Bomber Perks.
A way around this is to make the B29 perked two or three times as heavily as it should for the first week or two. People will burn all the perks.
Then after even the perk amount out.
-
And it should be a single ship. You want a B29, it should be A B29. And perk the dog crap out of it.
-
No, you should have the option for Three. But the perk points rise...
-
I vote for B29's without the atom bomb. Need to spend 2k perk points for something other than AR234.
Also hard to see this game without the B25. Our first raid..Doolittle.
27th
-
I think that there should be a B29 (SuperFortress)
That would be a lot of fun to bomb airfields.
-
Amazing that people stop replying to the 'we need b-29 + n00k' threads
Thanks for your request 66AcE, Im sure HTC would consider it now!
-
Your kidding me right???? Gee it's only been what 3 or 4 weeks since this request was last on here?
-
They seem to get bored too :)
-
so this B29 request number 1,00000000000000000
-
Instead of the B-29, HTC should perk the requests!
-
Im missing Superdud and his NOOOOOOOKKIIIEEEEEEEEEE! posts in here...
Furball, got on of your comics handy??
-
This is serious...even furball now gets tired of it!
-
Originally posted by frank3
This is serious...even furball now gets tired of it!
Thank God! heh heh heh
-
Forget the "nooooooooook" crap... the B29 and other planes... belong in the game
-
Just imagine, what will these people do when the B29 is finally brought into AH (in a looooong time). Will they wet themselves, only to find that they do not have enough bomber perks to fly it? What then will they ask for?
-
ok ace this is the 2nd time u post this its not going to happen
even if it did you would not have any perks to fly it cause your a............................ ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .......................come u know it........................... ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ...
NOOB!!!!
-
Nobody is a noob IMO, Im sure Ace didn't know the B-29 would be such a hot item, it just came up to him.
But still...
-
Originally posted by frank3
This is serious...even furball now gets tired of it!
i got tired ages ago, it was supertard that kept bringing it up.
-
You should see the looks on our faces if the B-29 actually got added! :O *twitch
-
when TOD reaches PTO then i am sure it will be...
doubt that will be anytime soon though!
-
What's PTO?
-
Pacific Theater of Operations.
And yeah, especially for late-war, the B-29 would be fairly important.
-
Would be something to have for the 'ending of the AH war' :)
-
Originally posted by viper215
ok ace this is the 2nd time u post this its not going to happen
even if it did you would not have any perks to fly it cause your a............................ ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. .......................come u know it........................... ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ............................. ...
NOOB!!!!
Pfft who u calling a noob maybe he flew in AW?
[size=16]NUB[/size]
I wouldn't mind having b29. Don't know bout the nuke tho:p
-
i wnat a B29 superfortres for this game, and i want a nuculeer bomb for it 2.
i want it so i can blow up japs man, it would be so awesopme!!!1
-
oh dear god here we go again...
LEARN TO SEARCH!:furious
-
Obviously a poor attempt at a troll. If they had spelled "nuclear" correctly I might have believed it.
-
could be...
or maybe they're actually that poor at spelling:lol
-
Im pretty sure they stoped countin how many times people requested this.
-
hi megadud
-
Originally posted by Furball
hi megadud
you reckon? it lacks any nook jokes or anything. it could be a little kid.
i would expect a superdud or megadud troll to be of far higher calibre!
-
i thought i was bad, even i know better than to post about this!!:huh
-
Probably mega... I hope:eek:
-
lern 2 spel? :huh
-
Originally posted by PLANEKILLER
i wnat a B29 superfortres for this game, and i want a nuculeer bomb for it 2.
i want it so i can blow up japs man, it would be so awesopme!!!1
(http://www.btinternet.com/~wakey100/noob9.jpg)
-
Instead of askin for the b29, lets figure out why HTC doesnt put the B29 or the atomic bomb in the game. I havent been around AH for long but i seen thousands of B29 requests. If im tired of it i can imagine what the vets must be saying.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
Instead of askin for the b29, lets figure out why HTC doesnt put the B29 or the atomic bomb in the game. I havent been around AH for long but i seen thousands of B29 requests. If im tired of it i can imagine what the vets must be saying.
I think they are thinking about giving in half way...we are getting a B-14.5.
:rofl
-
Originally posted by PLANEKILLER
i want it so i can blow up japs man, it would be so awesopme!!!1
I think such a line is inappropriate - troll or no troll.
-
See rule #3
:eek:
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
I think such a line is inappropriate - troll or no troll.
Agreed, Schatzi.
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
I think such a line is inappropriate - troll or no troll.
I disagree that it's inappropriate as a general comment, after all it did happen & we do recreate air battles where real people died. I think trolling in and of itself for the purpose of pissing people off is inappropriate.
I had a whole lot more I could have said, but why get into politics in a wish list thread, esspecially one as obvious as this one.
-
well, im not sure whether it is a troll or not, simply because of it's sheer stupidity, but if it isnt a troll it's probably a little kid who doesnt know any better.
if it is a troll it is a little inconciderate, but i guess as brenjen says, it did happen in real life, still, not exactly pleasant thoughts. well, perhaps the kid, if he is a kid will learn a little for next time;)
-
ok ill copramiste hows about a B-29 w/o nuclear capabilaties
i dont know i think a nuke is a bit to much :noid :aok
-
they can hold alot of ords and we already have lancasters. No need for them.
-
oy he jacked my location!! :furious
anyhow
(http://[IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/b1leeb0b/nookie.gif)[/IMG]
-
I wouldn't mind having it, it was built in large numbers & was deployed in combat....but the HE-111 might be better to have, because if we got the B-29 then the "why doesn't it have the nuke" questions would be non-stop.
-
(http://img.freeforumzone.it/upload/722810_jedi%20noob.jpg)
-
I need something to spend my perk points on other than a AR234.
-
spend your perks on something worth flying a 234's only defense is its speed that rear gun doesn't do much though I think it gives you a speed boost
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
spend your perks on something worth flying a 234's only defense is its speed that rear gun doesn't do much though I think it gives you a speed boost
Just keep the JATO rockets and fire them when you get threatened.
That or bomb from 40k
-
That or bomb from 40k
bomb from 40k while fireing the RATO:D
-
Originally posted by 1men8women
ok ill copramiste hows about a B-29 w/o nuclear capabilaties
i dont know i think a nuke is a bit to much :noid :aok
WTF is copramiste? Sounds like cop aftershave to me
Search is your friend. If you use that little search button and enter the words "B-29", magical things happen
-
I don't have the strength.
-
(http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/450004621/102.jpg)
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
spend your perks on something worth flying a 234's only defense is its speed that rear gun doesn't do much though I think it gives you a speed boost
Hey RAIDER14...NEWS FLASH- THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER PERKED BUFF
Apparently "a noob YOU are" :rofl
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
WTF is copramiste? Sounds like cop aftershave to me
Search is your friend. If you use that little search button and enter the words "B-29", magical things happen
Yea your not kidding about magic happening...The search engine will explode, and a medium sizec mechanical arm will come out of your tower and slap you in the face:furious
-
You know, they should make a rule in this forum: NO ASKING FOR B-29'S! IT AINT GONNA HAPPEN!
Geez, do you people know how much terrain 1 nuke blows up? 25 FRIGGIN MILES! That is 1 square in AH. 1 MA mission could end the war with a formation of B-29's! 1 b-29 per square. Boom, war is won. Now all we have to do is fly in C-47's and finish this.
I say no to B-29's. Even if they don't add a nuke, and just add a regular payload to it. It would spark TOO MUCH CONTROVERSY. All the newer people would say.. NUKE NUKE NUKE, WE WANT NUKES ON OUR B-29'S! And all the veterans of AH would want to get rid of the B-29 because it has a tail 20 MM cannon, has a lot of armor. And can carry way more than a lancaster and a B-17!
NO NO NO NO NO TO THE B-29!
-
Originally posted by cav58d
Yea your not kidding about magic happening...The search engine will explode, and a medium sizec mechanical arm will come out of your tower and slap you in the face:furious
:rofl :aok
-
real good one i just tryed B-29 8 times and it did not WORK
-
MY GOODNESS!!! WHY ARE WE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION WHEN JUST A FEW HOURS EARLIER WE HAD THIS SAME DAM DISCUSSION JUST A FEW THREADS BELOW THIS ONE!
-
if i remember history class at all, i thought only 2 nooks were used in WWII. doesn't seem like it was used enough for this game. in other words....
NO NOOKS!
or B29's
-
AMEN! And it's Nukes;)
-
No it's nooks, get a clue noob!
-
i'd love to have a superfortress in the plane set. could care less about a nuke. seems silly.
but to have that plane would be a treat.
my main reason is how cool it would look from the pilot's seat looking out of that canopy. yup would be fun. says it toted a 20k payload. B17 has a 6k payload, b24 an 8k and a lanc i've forgotten.
shoot, let em in but no formation . . . which would be few k less than a b24. or let em fly in formation and perk the snot out of them give guys something to spend bomber perks on in addition to the arado.
also, my guess is they'd be just as vulnerable to 163 attacks at 35k as current buffs are.
hap
-
We should fund a study on how many peoples first post is a request for the B-29...
-
Originally posted by moneyguy
if i remember history class at all, i thought only 2 nooks were used in WWII. doesn't seem like it was used enough for this game. in other words....
NO NOOKS!
or B29's
the b29 was used a lot during ww2 do research before posting:rolleyes:
-
(http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/450004621/104.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Treize69
(http://www2.propichosting.com/Images/450004621/104.jpg)
:lol
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
the b29 was used a lot during ww2 do research before posting:rolleyes:
if you go back and read my post again, especially this part "i thought only 2 nooks were used in WWII" you will see that i was talkin about nooks. :rolleyes:
-
but you also said no B29's
-
Originally posted by moneyguy
if you go back and read my post again, especially this part "i thought only 2 nooks were used in WWII" you will see that i was talkin about nooks. :rolleyes:
Don't worry guy, everyone else understood I'm sure...I know I wasn't at all confused by what you wrote. I saw one of raiders posts in the other B-29 thread...same confused response.
-
The B-29 MIGHT be added though when they get to Japan in the Combat Tour but I don't know about a Nook to many people would abuse it
-
Originally posted by Schatzi
I think such a line is inappropriate - troll or no troll.
nothing whatsoever wrong with that.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Hey RAIDER14...NEWS FLASH- THERE ISN'T ANY OTHER PERKED BUFF
Apparently "a noob YOU are" :rofl
well I have been away from the game for about 6 months now due to a nasty trojan virus so I forgot some of the stuff
-
No atomic bomb. With it it would just make the game A-bombes high. NObody would want to do nothin but drop them. I can imagine wat 3 or 4 Abomb blasts would do to the frame rate. But the b29 should still be added. It played a ery important part of the war. Just perk it. Perk not to hard but enuff so i dont see waves of them bombin one base. The perk will also get rib of those one way trip low level bombers.
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
. . . nasty trojan virus . . .
Umm . . . wait. No, too easy.
-
i swear was just on a thread like this 5 minutes ago. They should give us the b29 perk it and close all threads that ask for atomic bombs. Make it one of the rules, "no request for A bomb or u will be banned from message board" Add the he 111 as well.
Raider change ur pic back. I like stewie better.
Maybe the b29 request is a right of passage to new guys in the message boards. Like there "first time" on the message boards.
-
|
|
|
|
|
\|/
LOOK DOW YOU NOOB! AND USE THE SEARCH FUNCTION RIGHT! JEEZ!
-
Originally posted by E25280
Umm . . . wait. No, too easy.
finished downloading something on the net and my comp screen turned blue then my comp shut off took it to the Geek Squad store cost for repair was $600+
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
but you also said no B29's
yea, whatever
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
finished downloading something on the net and my comp screen turned blue then my comp shut off took it to the Geek Squad store cost for repair was $600+
Shoulda just bought a new computer....:rofl
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
i swear was just on a thread like this 5 minutes ago. They should give us the b29 perk it and close all threads that ask for atomic bombs.
NO NO NO NO! EVEN IF THEY DO PERK IT, AND EVEN IF THEY DO SAY "NO" TO A-BOMBS. PEOPLE WILL BE SCREAMING UP AND DOWN FOR JUST THAT! Besides, its on the list of planes that HTC will NOT MAKE!
So let's stop having these fuc**** conversations about the B-29!:furious
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
The B-29 MIGHT be added though when they get to Japan in the Combat Tour but I don't know about a Nook to many people would abuse it
Well, that i'm not so sure of, but I do know that the B-29 is on the list of planes HTC will NOT make!
-
Originally posted by Bogie603rd
Well, that i'm not so sure of, but I do know that the B-29 is on the list of planes HTC will NOT make!
not so...
HT said he would like to do it some time IIRC, but they certainly wont model a nook. b29 is possible, but it'll be a normal one, not a nook carrier :)
-
Pooface, I really detest people making shades accounts, then having discussions with themselves in a thread.
-
Theres a lidt of planes that aces high wont make? Where is it, what other planes wont they make?
-
wonder if this is pooface again?
-
Yeah, i'm wondering the same thing:cool:
-
no not me again;)
-
I would also like a B-29 Superfortress:O
-
you are new here arnt you? :p
-
ooohhh superdud where are you?
-
im new here yes
-
everybody wants one but no one wants to see the "I want teh Neuk" thread x10,000
totaly behind its creation though :aok
-
:noid
-
Guys DON'T SAY THA N WORD! (NUKE) SAY Ostrich Egg.
-
NOOOOOOOOOO))))))))))))000000ooOO)0OO00oO)OOoO))o))oOooOoo))0oo000000KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkKKKKKKkkkkkkkkK KKKkIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIeEEEEE EEEEEEEEE3EEEEEEEEEEeeeeee#ee33eEEEEEEEEEZZZZZZZZZZZzzZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz!#!##4321@!@o24neone@!#23q31four!#!132!#! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH!@!@ BIG BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM~@~@~!@ ZomFg!#@!#!@! QUUUUUUUUUUUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHH HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH HH!#!#@!#@!
PS I agree, add the B29.
-
(http://i59.photobucket.com/albums/g284/Michael75229/nookie.gif):D
-
Ah, excellent
-
a masterpice of the AHII forums :)
-
I wanna drop a meatball
-
Hadda happen.
All hail teh nookie nook.
-
Originally posted by Scherf
All hail teh nookie nook.
god bless you nookie nook.
(http://www3.sympatico.ca/simsg/pray.JPG)
-
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Amwpns.jpg)
JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JUST SAY NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Japan/Hirgrnd.jpg) (http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Japan/Hirosh1.gif)
(http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Japan/Nagask1.jpg)
-
Not again.
-
oh yes...again.
:cool:
-
It's like the bunny from the battery commercials ;)
-
it just keeps going and going and going and going.....
-
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
it just keeps going and going and going and going.....
and going....
-
and going....
-
tell me about it, i wish i had never said it or made the cartoon in the first place!
-
Duck & Cover (http://www.archive.org/details/DuckandC1951)
-
i dont want it to nuke people i just wanna drop regular bombs and see what the inside of the b29 looks like when u r flyin it. sory for the confusion about the ostrich eggs, nooks whatever u call them.
:)
-
The B29 will be here in two weeks.
-
Originally posted by sluggish
The B29 will be here in two weeks.
r u friggin serious
-
Originally posted by migeater
r u friggin serious
yes
-
Look a bit around in this Forum, migeater. Do a search for "nook".... you wont have to look far and get all your questions about the B29 answered :).
-
that cartoon is to funny
:rofl :rofl
-
<-- sticks head in the door
B twenty what ?
Oh ok
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
yes
It coming to MA or just combat tour????
-
hey guys... i heard leaked reports that they had to delay the B29 for a bit of tweaking.
B29 will be here the week before xmas..... a true xmas present from HTC.
hitech.:aok
-
Originally posted by Overlag
hey guys... i heard leaked reports that they had to delay the B29 for a bit of tweaking.
B29 will be here the week before xmas..... a true xmas present from HTC.
hitech.:aok
proof evidence?:huh :confused:
-
not shure weather to be overly happy or suspicious :noid
-
zOMG! the b29 is the coolest plane i have ever flown, HT has been letting the cool people test it. we used the remote control gunners to shoot the new sheep again and again, it was great.
-
They are probaly luaghing at us right now:noid
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
proof evidence?:huh :confused:
i cant say. i used to be in a squad back in 2002 with one of the skinners.... the model looks fantastic, he pm'ed me the picture.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
i cant say. i used to be in a squad back in 2002 with one of the skinners.... the model looks fantastic, he pm'ed me the picture.
Sounds sweet, just the b29 or any more things in the stocking with it :D ?
-
Originally posted by RAIDER14
proof evidence?:huh :confused:
it seems to be common knowledge now, so it wont hurt if i post a screeny (i hope)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1164634086_b29.jpg)
-
U sure you're allowed to post that Furby? I hope you checked with HTC, they're gonna be upset:eek:
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/nicetroll.jpg)
Cmon furby your slipping.
This is not up to BK standards for trolling the bbs.
Bronk
-
That was an early test bug, they had the same issue that they had with the F4U speedo, it was fixed when they released the last patch, like the F4U one.
Version 2.09 Patch 1 Released November 16, 2006
Changes from previous release
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fixed a bug that caused a CTD if you went into the lobby first and later bailed out of a plane.
Airspeed indicators on the new F4U's were off.
Love the way you feel the need to post it in both threads though Bronk :)
"LOOK WHAT I FOUND! :O"
i will have a look later about getting that film for you.
-
oooooh i cant wait to drive the b29
-
Originally posted by Ball
it seems to be common knowledge now, so it wont hurt if i post a screeny (i hope)
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1164634086_b29.jpg)
And by the looks of those clouds and ground, and the location of your plane on the checkboard map, I say you were flying that B29 in FS2004.
-
Originally posted by VooWho
And by the looks of those clouds and ground, and the location of your plane on the checkboard map, I say you were flying that B29 in FS2004.
thats the new cloud system from CT as well...... ;)
-
Divebombing, multicrewing from front gunner position
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1164666231_superstooka.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Ball
Divebombing, multicrewing from front gunner position
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1164666231_superstooka.jpg)
:O :O :O :O
Dive bombn superfort :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
Not to mention how "hot" you look...
-
Really, do we believe, or do we say they're all liars. The second scrennie looks frikin sweet.
-
Hey ive seen that pic as a screenshot from FS2004 on a site about it... if you wanna modify pics then mod them right! And you probably would have gotten away with it if you didnt have the speedomoter thing on the clipboard showing.
-
...
-
so many bites on the fish hook......
my fellow wind up merchants :rofl
-
Originally posted by Overlag
so many bites on the fish hook...... my fellow wind up merchants :rofl
:rolleyes: fooled again ok everyone back inside...
-
Originally posted by Billy Joe Bob
And you probably would have gotten away with it if you didnt have the speedomoter thing on the clipboard showing.
It wasn't really my intention "to get away with it"
-
I think this is all Bulls***
You guys are lying to me
:noid
-
Originally posted by migeater
I think this is all Bulls***
You guys are lying to me
:noid
uh oh. i see a rule#7 violation.
:O
-
Originally posted by Ball
It wasn't really my intention "to get away with it"
I meant to keep the flailing and the "LIEK Z0EMG TEH B TOOENTY NYNE WE GETTING IT LOL" going
-
will it be in h2h or is this too valuable and would only be an extremely high perk in MA
-
Well, well, well I seem to have hit a nerve. LOL. Apparently we've all forgotten that before the atomic bomb the B-29 was used to fire bomb Japanese cities until there was nothing left but ashes. We all know thats because conventional bombs just didn't get the job done in the Pacific as well as they did in the ETO. (European Theater of Operations) Brick and stone crumble but wood burns real good and Japanese cities were primarily wooden structures. I agree with all of you who posted that nukes should NOT be part of AH II, but wouldn't it be cool to fire bomb a town and watch it burn? The troops could be brought in once the fires burn out. (Actually for game purposes they could just drop conventional bombs only more of them.) Anyway, the solution is to limit their payloads to CONVENTIONAL weapons only. Simple right. Thanks to all of you who posted.
P.S.
Now about that P-61 Black Widow .... just kidding. :lol
-
What? Oh yeah, the barbecue was delicious.
-
Just one more buff to hunt, i'd be happy to have it.
:)
-
StarRdr it's not an insult or flame on your B25 thread. It's just a long history with the B29. Do a search for nook and you'll understand.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
StarRdr it's not an insult or flame on your B25 thread. It's just a long history with the B29. Do a search for nook and you'll understand.
SuperDud I didn't post anything about the B-25. I think you have me confused with somebody else.
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
Originally posted by StarRdr58
SuperDud I didn't post anything about the B-25. I think you have me confused with somebody else.
You're right, my bad.
I got the PBY tread confused with the B25, he also requested the B29 in that 1. But on a serious note, when you post anything about the B29 everything else in that thread is null and void. It's one of the little quirks that has happened over time on these boards. When you make a request in the future, leave the B29 out otherwise all us vulchers swoop in and attack:D . The PBY isn't a bad idea IMO.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
You're right, my bad.
I got the PBY tread confused with the B25, he also requested the B29 in that 1. But on a serious note, when you post anything about the B29 everything else in that thread is null and void. It's one of the little quirks that has happened over time on these boards. When you make a request in the future, leave the B29 out otherwise all us vulchers swoop in and attack:D . The PBY isn't a bad idea IMO.
:aok Thanks for the tip SuperDud. Had I known that I wouldn't have mentioned it. ( I still think it could be part of the game though, that is if everyone could just get around the idea of it being a "nuclear" bomber. )
-
I want to see the B-29 added to the game. It was used to bomb Japan on a regular basis and it is the plane that changed the war.
-
Gee, thats a new request. Nobody ever thought of adding the B-29.:aok
-
Originally posted by Caliber
and it is the plane that changed the war.
B-24 Liberator (19200)
B-17 Flying Fortress (12700)
B-25 Mitchell (9800)
# B-29 Super Fortress (4000)
Ya think?
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
Has to be done.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
B-24 Liberator (19200)
B-17 Flying Fortress (12700)
B-25 Mitchell (9800)
# B-29 Super Fortress (4000)
Ya think?
you forgot he-111 do-17
-
Nope.
Oink
-
Okay.
-
Originally posted by blkmgc
B-24 Liberator (19200)
B-17 Flying Fortress (12700)
B-25 Mitchell (9800)
# B-29 Super Fortress (4000)
Ya think?
Wait, does that mean the B-29 is next???:aok
-
One word:(http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/images/top_search.gif)
-
I'm all about picking on squeakers, but at least this noob typed his request in such a way that he was understood. Decent grammar, good spelling and punctuation. :aok
Keep it up, just put a little more research into your posts.
-
Troll.
All hail teh nookie nook.
-
Originally posted by Bosco123
One word:(http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/images/top_search.gif)
I dare you to post the results of your search for "B-29."
I double dare you.
I double dog dare you.
I triple dog dare you.
-
Here we go again.
-
Originally posted by clerick
I'm all about picking on squeakers, but at least this noob typed his request in such a way that he was understood. Decent grammar, good spelling and punctuation. :aok
Keep it up, just put a little more research into your posts.
My post was just a simple statement. I don't appreciate the term "Noob" as I have been playing this game for several years. I never registered on the forum because I never felt the need. The B-29 WAS the plane that ended the war, plain and simple. How much more research needs to be done???
The B-17 was a hell of a plane, the B-24 was a death trap, (the fuel lines were prone to gunfire and as a result left many crew to burn alive in the beautiful beast). The B-25 was a remarkable plane, my father was a flight engineer on the B-25.
Every plane played an important role in the war, I never denied that.
-
Originally posted by Caliber
The B-29 WAS the plane that ended the war, plain and simple.
Yeah, with an A-bomb. Which will not be added. So, not the plane its self.
-
SEARCH!!!
(http://www.mediamax.com/viche12345/Hosted/no.gif)
-
Originally posted by Caliber
My post was just a simple statement. I don't appreciate the term "Noob" as I have been playing this game for several years. I never registered on the forum because I never felt the need. The B-29 WAS the plane that ended the war, plain and simple. How much more research needs to be done???
The B-17 was a hell of a plane, the B-24 was a death trap, (the fuel lines were prone to gunfire and as a result left many crew to burn alive in the beautiful beast). The B-25 was a remarkable plane, my father was a flight engineer on the B-25.
Every plane played an important role in the war, I never denied that.
Then don't ask NOOB questions.
It has been stated before by HTC that the B-29 will not be added. It would be a destabalizing factor.
Why give the griefers an even more effective tool to do thier griefing with. The bombers we have are more than effective. They have killer guns, laser guided bombs (or so they seem) and they do not have to deal with turbulance or wind drift. The bombing aspect of the game is one of the most "unrealistic" parts of AHII.
I say, before we get another large bomber, we need wind above 10K with turbulance, random bomb drift and get rid of the easy mode bomb site.
The B-29 did not end the war, a nuclear bomb ended the war.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
SEARCH!!!
(http://www.mediamax.com/viche12345/Hosted/no.gif)
Unfortunatly, you cannot search for b29 or b-29.
I sticky at the top of this forum would be good.
-
...and a nuke, too?!?:rofl
(http://www.insekure.com/gallery/d/2784-1/stugs.jpg)
-
Originally posted by MotleyCH
...and a nuke, too?!?:rofl
(http://www.insekure.com/gallery/d/2784-1/stugs.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by Caliber
I want to see the B-29 added to the game. It was used to bomb Japan on a regular basis and it is the plane that changed the war.
AWESOME, AWESOME idea!
I'll get started on this right now.
You should see the plane ingame in about, oh, 2 weeks.
-
Originally posted by Caliber
My post was just a simple statement. I don't appreciate the term "Noob" as I have been playing this game for several years. I never registered on the forum because I never felt the need. The B-29 WAS the plane that ended the war, plain and simple. How much more research needs to be done???
The B-17 was a hell of a plane, the B-24 was a death trap, (the fuel lines were prone to gunfire and as a result left many crew to burn alive in the beautiful beast). The B-25 was a remarkable plane, my father was a flight engineer on the B-25.
Every plane played an important role in the war, I never denied that.
Where did this comment about the 24 come from? I know lots of guys who flew 24s and they never looked at it that way. Considering it served in every theater of the war and did things the 17 couldn't, I'm hard pressed to describe it as a 'death trap"
That sounds way too much like a history channel comment to me.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Then don't ask NOOB questions.
It has been stated before by HTC that the B-29 will not be added. It would be a destabalizing factor.
Now, I would really love to see proof that he said that. Just to let you know the B29 was one of the reasons the perk system was added.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Unfortunatly, you cannot search for b29 or b-29...
B-29: 4 characters...
B29: 3 characters...
Superfortress: 13 characters...
One of those should work.
-
2 pages of posts with the search "super fortress." Not all relevent but im sure some will help.
B-29 Caliber Wishlist 23 186 12-27-2007 04:15 PM
by Denholm
B-29 Hien Wishlist 18 312 11-16-2007 03:57 PM
by Tiger
Incindiary clusters HAFhr Wishlist 7 259 10-21-2007 03:00 PM
by HAFhr
b-25.... How about... devild0g Aircraft and Vehicles 23 474 04-17-2007 07:10 PM
by DiabloTX
Gun turret sounds frank3 Wishlist 5 127 03-15-2007 12:23 PM
by Puck
we want b-29!!!!!!!! aceman Aircraft and Vehicles 49 819 03-01-2007 05:15 PM
by Ball
Were getting b-29, Laurie Aces High General Discussion 72 1783 12-03-2006 05:00 PM
by KILLLJOY
My top priorities if I ever become an EVIL OVERLORD (long) Gunthr The O' Club 9 221 09-21-2006 08:38 AM
by Goomba
B29 Aussie Wishlist 71 878 08-18-2006 11:54 PM
by bkbandit
Atomic Bomb dropped on Hiroshima RAIDER14 The O' Club 112 1339 08-11-2006 02:03 PM
by Maverick
Idea discussed at the con. hitech Aces High General Discussion 349 5191 07-21-2006 10:09 AM
by Hades55
Name this series (Mecha related) 1K3 The O' Club 29 346 07-17-2006 08:20 PM
by ASTAC
"The Evil Within" Midnight Aces High General Discussion 19 541 06-05-2006 03:33 PM
by Furball
B-29's please boozed Wishlist 45 343 03-16-2006 07:18 PM
by ChopSaw
Nuke DarkNet Wishlist 12 279 10-07-2005 12:21 AM
by frank3
B-29 Super Fortress RTVapor Wishlist 42 669 09-28-2005 11:44 AM
by 27th
Experimental Planes!!! Billy Joe Bob Aces High General Discussion 34 909 08-06-2005 06:02 PM
by SELECTOR
Holy Bi pedal tanks batman! Glasses The O' Club 67 761 07-29-2005 08:55 AM
by Midnight
Realistic Plane lists Pooface Aircraft and Vehicles 50 947 06-08-2005 04:51 PM
by RTSigma
Nazi 'WunderWeapon' Wotan Aircraft and Vehicles 6 571 05-31-2005 05:16 PM
by g00b
Japanese Defence Force in Iraq -tronski- The O' Club 35 462 02-25-2005 12:44 AM
by -tronski-
.50 cal vs Sword Makarov9 The O' Club 8 221 12-09-2004 08:25 PM
by Glasses
What are the next 4 AC or GV you want in AH? daddog Aces High General Discussion 102 1254 11-09-2004 10:18 PM
by 1K3
is 2.01 released within October? Mitsu Aces High General Discussion 25 894 09-30-2004 07:44 PM
by Elfie
Uber Buffs
Bomber question. GRUNHERZ Aircraft and Vehicles 12 204 02-24-2004 03:55 AM
by LLv34_Snefens
Perk Bombers WilldCrd Aces High General Discussion 21 343 02-16-2004 08:33 AM
by Sway
F4u-5 Rafe35 Films and Screenshots 10 438 02-03-2004 10:34 AM
by frank3
Trouble with B26s Crowwe Aces High General Discussion 43 849 09-19-2003 12:21 AM
by Widewing
The Japanese might go nuclear Glasses The O' Club 9 199 09-06-2003 02:04 PM
by Nilsen
Flying Legends at Duxford.... swoopy The O' Club 31 277 07-11-2003 02:40 AM
by Dowding
He-111 Bomber TheCage Aircraft and Vehicles 64 856 12-20-2002 07:42 PM
by Imp
What's the one WWII era plane... Pyro Aces High General Discussion 226 2194 11-25-2002 12:39 AM
by Tyro48
Guesses about what is coming in Aces High v.1.11 Karnak Aces High General Discussion 51 989 10-28-2002 10:14 AM
by MotorOil
Questions: Demosthanese Aces High General Discussion 4 120 07-23-2002 10:48 AM
by Pongo
B-29 Super Fortress krazyhorse Aircraft and Vehicles 12 224 02-19-2002 09:50 AM
by krazyhorse
Some Missing Plane's RabidSquirrel Aircraft and Vehicles 30 14 01-07-2002 11:36 AM
by jan
Bombers....are they made of balsa wood or something? Curval Aces High General Discussion 28 2 12-03-2001 02:15 PM
by mrfish
B-29 Flying Fortress and Nuclear bomb in 1.08 !! lasse Aces High General Discussion 17 4 06-18-2001 05:54 PM
by Goob
Which American aircraft do you most want? Karnak Aircraft and Vehicles 92 6 06-12-2001 02:01 PM
by SpitLead
"Which X aircraft do you most want?" poll results Karnak Aircraft and Vehicles 10 6 05-20-2001 04:29 PM
by Karnak
Time for a screenshot! oboe Aces High General Discussion 15 5 04-07-2001 09:14 AM
by Lephturn
preliminary perk wish list 1.06 Zigrat Aces High General Discussion 24 1 12-30-2000 09:59 AM
by oboe
The coolest thing in the world (off topic) ezrust Aces High General Discussion 0 2 03-26-2000 10:25 PM
by ezrust
"better see some new stuff, otherwise its warbirds with better terrain version" FIX Tracker521 Aircraft and Vehicles 28 9 01-02-2000 02:19 AM
by lemur
Otto...err... AI gunners? Any update as to when they'll appear?
-
Originally posted by Denholm
B-29: 4 characters...
B29: 3 characters...
Superfortress: 13 characters...
One of those should work.
b29 doesnt work b-29 counts as b29 and no post with superfortress
i beleive that everyone in the game has made a post on the b29
-
You believe wrong.
-
Originally posted by Caliber
My post was just a simple statement. I don't appreciate the term "Noob" as I have been playing this game for several years. I never registered on the forum because I never felt the need. The B-29 WAS the plane that ended the war, plain and simple. How much more research needs to be done???
The B-17 was a hell of a plane, the B-24 was a death trap, (the fuel lines were prone to gunfire and as a result left many crew to burn alive in the beautiful beast). The B-25 was a remarkable plane, my father was a flight engineer on the B-25.
Every plane played an important role in the war, I never denied that.
Simple statement?
Use Search. Simplicity notwithstanding, you should have known this had been asked for already.
-
Originally posted by SpikesX
Yeah, with an A-bomb. Which will not be added. So, not the plane its self.
I think that the fire bombing raids did more to Japanese moral than the 2 nooks did.
-
Originally posted by mentalguy
Now, I would really love to see proof that he said that. Just to let you know the B29 was one of the reasons the perk system was added.
I have read it. can't say exactly which staff member stated it and you can't search for it.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
B-29: 4 characters...
B29: 3 characters...
Superfortress: 13 characters...
One of those should work.
b-24: the - is not recognized as a charcter
B29: < 4 chrs will not search
Superfortress: returns 0 results.
-
Search for "nuke" or "nook".
-
I'd rather be dropping a Bat-Bomb into a town before an A-Bomb.
-
My top priorities if I ever become an EVIL OVERLORD (long) Gunthr The O' Club 9 221 09-21-2006 08:38 AM
by Goomba
winner! :D
-
Nevermind.
-
Originally posted by E25280
I dare you to post the results of your search for "B-29."
I double dare you.
I double dog dare you.
I triple dog dare you.
Oh no you didn't :rolleyes:
-
2 weeks:eek:
-
bring teh supafartress to aces hgh!11!!
-
If we get the B29, I want this cruiser
(http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-MIO-Vehicles/Washington_Cruiser-SM.gif)
Technical data can be found here
http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-MIO-Vehicles/Washington_Cruiser.htm
George Washington class Space Cruiser:
The George Washington was supposed to be the first military large space ship built by the United States military. The Washington was also the last. The ship had been contracted from Boeing Aerospace and built by them.
The ship is a product of the United States Air Force and is crewed by Air Force personnel and the crew uses both the Air Force's rank structure and terminology. Naval terms are not used by the ship's crew due to there being a certain prejudice against the Navy. This ship was designed so that a large artillery platform, fighters, and large numbers of troops could all respond to a hot situation if necessary. This ship was also built to be as independent as possible so that the ship could deal with situations that take long periods of time to be dealt with.
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
If we get the B29, I want this cruiser
(http://www.kitsune.addr.com/Rifts/Rifts-MIO-Vehicles/Washington_Cruiser-SM.gif)
That has "funkillah" writing ALL OVER IT!!! You and I would not be fighting over sausage laden pizza, rather we'd be fighting over gunning.
-
:D
Next time rooks are mindlessly vulching again, lets see how they like it when that base's hangers are killed from orbit
I am a bad bad meatwad :)
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
b-24: the - is not recognized as a charcter
B29: < 4 chrs will not search
Superfortress: returns 0 results.
look back in this forums i already posted it
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Simple statement?
Use Search. Simplicity notwithstanding, you should have known this had been asked for already.
Who cares if it has been asked for in the past. I am asking for it again.
-
Originally posted by Clifra Jones
Then don't ask NOOB questions.
It has been stated before by HTC that the B-29 will not be added. It would be a destabalizing factor.
Why give the griefers an even more effective tool to do thier griefing with. The bombers we have are more than effective. They have killer guns, laser guided bombs (or so they seem) and they do not have to deal with turbulance or wind drift. The bombing aspect of the game is one of the most "unrealistic" parts of AHII.
I say, before we get another large bomber, we need wind above 10K with turbulance, random bomb drift and get rid of the easy mode bomb site.
The B-29 did not end the war, a nuclear bomb ended the war.
What have you been smoking??? Alot of the aircraft in this game are not historically correct. The B-25 was a tough bird, in the game a slingshot can take it down.
-
Originally posted by Caliber
What have you been smoking??? Alot of the aircraft in this game are not historically correct. The B-25 was a tough bird, in the game a slingshot can take it down.
Not the B-25's I shoot at...
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Not the B-25's I shoot at...
Agreed. Those things take 20mm's like bullets to kevlar.:confused:
-
20 in the tail take out the tail gun and a top gun is taken out with a 20 50cals take out the side guns
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Not the B-25's I shoot at...
Nor the ones I shoot at.
It regularly takes several osti hits and keeps going (barring a hit to the pilot).
-
Originally posted by Caliber
I want to see the B-29 added to the game. It was used to bomb Japan on a regular basis and it is the plane that changed the war.
I heard it will be added in about 2 weeks!
-
Originally posted by Caliber
Who cares if it has been asked for in the past. I am asking for it again.
And the answer for the 10,000 time is still NO. If you want the superfortress, There was a whole game made just for it. Maybe next time actually READ the forums before posting requests that have been made 10k times before.
I dont care if you've played for years, Its obvious that you never through to read before posting, thereby YOU are a noob. Its OK, Everyone starts there sometime.
-
Originally posted by Caliber
My post was just a simple statement. I don't appreciate the term "Noob" as I have been playing this game for several years.
Try eleven months. Would you like you use a lifeline?
-
Originally posted by MotleyCH
...and a nuke, too?!?:rofl
(http://www.insekure.com/gallery/d/2784-1/stugs.jpg)
10/10 this reply delivers
-
Perhaps I'm insane, but I had an idea. And perhaps this has been raised before, but since I'm new to the game (4 months in) I thought I'd ask it anyway.
Why not add a B29 model to the game in the LW arenas?
I had some thoughts to see if I could suggest ways to make it viable.
1) It would be heavily perked, of course, higher than the ME262.
2) Perhaps we could add a series of "cities" to the games that have no military significance, except maybe as a percentage of the foe's health. Sprinkle these cities liberally throughout the maps.
3) The Nuke's load out would be perked, too.
4) If a B29 is shot down on takeoff, the nuke goes off, taking out a portion of the friendly base, i.e. VH's, BH's, or similar.
5) By incorporating B29's, it would motivate fights to happen at higher altitudes. A good chunk of these fights stay down low, mitigating the effectiveness of many planes in the game.
6) Perhaps save the B29's for Special Events' scenarios, would be an alternative.
7) I'm not sure if we should allow Nukes to be dropped on airfields, vehicle bases, etc.
8) If a B29 is shot down in the air, it takes out its whole flight.
9) Alternatively, to maintain realism, the bomb could only be armed at say a certain altitude, or have to fall a certain distance to be armed which should weed out the guys who feel compelled to drop it at 5K feet to "see what would happen".
10) At the very least, a B29 with fire bombs would be cool, again, assuming cities were added to the game.
Perhaps I'm being greedy, lusting after a wild scenario, but I sure would like to know how others feel on the topic.
Your thoughts?
Oops...just found out HOW to search for B-29 in the SEARCH button. Noob egg on my face. Sorry.
-
Search button......Search button.......:aok
-
Search button, works wonders my boy. Oh and search for "NOOK!!1" that will get plenty of results.
-
Nukular Wep on!
-
"And perhaps this has been raised before"
...No, the funny thing is, your the first!
-
Incredible how much this idea just won't die.
The squeakers just wanna nuke things dammit.
-
only two were dropped in wartime, and that choice is still being debated, yet peeps want to add it to a dogfighting game.:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by MORAY37
Incredible how much this idea just won't die.
The squeakers just wanna nuke things dammit.
Thats because they can't hit anything with conventional bombs :D
-
Originally posted by craig666
Perhaps I'm insane, but I had an idea. And perhaps this has been raised before, but since I'm new to the game (4 months in) I thought I'd ask it anyway.
Why not add a B29 model to the game in the LW arenas?
I had some thoughts to see if I could suggest ways to make it viable.
1) It would be heavily perked, of course, higher than the ME262.
2) Perhaps we could add a series of "cities" to the games that have no military significance, except maybe as a percentage of the foe's health. Sprinkle these cities liberally throughout the maps.
3) The Nuke's load out would be perked, too.
4) If a B29 is shot down on takeoff, the nuke goes off, taking out a portion of the friendly base, i.e. VH's, BH's, or similar.
5) By incorporating B29's, it would motivate fights to happen at higher altitudes. A good chunk of these fights stay down low, mitigating the effectiveness of many planes in the game.
6) Perhaps save the B29's for Special Events' scenarios, would be an alternative.
7) I'm not sure if we should allow Nukes to be dropped on airfields, vehicle bases, etc.
8) If a B29 is shot down in the air, it takes out its whole flight.
9) Alternatively, to maintain realism, the bomb could only be armed at say a certain altitude, or have to fall a certain distance to be armed which should weed out the guys who feel compelled to drop it at 5K feet to "see what would happen".
10) At the very least, a B29 with fire bombs would be cool, again, assuming cities were added to the game.
Perhaps I'm being greedy, lusting after a wild scenario, but I sure would like to know how others feel on the topic.
Your thoughts?
Oops...just found out HOW to search for B-29 in the SEARCH button. Noob egg on my face. Sorry.
B29, yes! Nuke, no! Make 25K min alt for bomb bays to open or some such similar arrangement.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
only two were dropped in wartime, and that choice is still being debated, yet peeps want to add it to a dogfighting game.:rolleyes:
I know you would love it, score porker.:D
-
[Digging up grainy video of wacked out '70s/80s era protesters...]
cue sound... "NO NUKES, NO NUKES, NO NUKES"... end clip
B-29 Perked YES
I think I might have read a thread or two on this subject...
BTW: Why is this a "general discussion" topic and not a "wishlist" topic?
-
Noooooooks. He said Noooooooks. Wooot! :)
Yep Craig, it's been mentioned a time or 2. You might see a B-29 someday - though I doubt it for no particular reason - but forget about the nooks - ain't gonna happen in the MA. ToD? Who knows?
Glove
-
NO
-
I can see it now, squeakers dropping nooks all over the MA, before you know it theres so much squeaker fallout nobody plays anymore.:(
-
Originally posted by craig666
Perhaps I'm insane, but I had an idea. And perhaps this has been raised before, but since I'm new to the game (4 months in) I thought I'd ask it anyway.
Why not add a B29 model to the game in the LW arenas?
I had some thoughts to see if I could suggest ways to make it viable.
1) It would be heavily perked, of course, higher than the ME262.
2) Perhaps we could add a series of "cities" to the games that have no military significance, except maybe as a percentage of the foe's health. Sprinkle these cities liberally throughout the maps.
3) The Nuke's load out would be perked, too.
4) If a B29 is shot down on takeoff, the nuke goes off, taking out a portion of the friendly base, i.e. VH's, BH's, or similar.
5) By incorporating B29's, it would motivate fights to happen at higher altitudes. A good chunk of these fights stay down low, mitigating the effectiveness of many planes in the game.
6) Perhaps save the B29's for Special Events' scenarios, would be an alternative.
7) I'm not sure if we should allow Nukes to be dropped on airfields, vehicle bases, etc.
8) If a B29 is shot down in the air, it takes out its whole flight.
9) Alternatively, to maintain realism, the bomb could only be armed at say a certain altitude, or have to fall a certain distance to be armed which should weed out the guys who feel compelled to drop it at 5K feet to "see what would happen".
10) At the very least, a B29 with fire bombs would be cool, again, assuming cities were added to the game.
Perhaps I'm being greedy, lusting after a wild scenario, but I sure would like to know how others feel on the topic.
Your thoughts?
Oops...just found out HOW to search for B-29 in the SEARCH button. Noob egg on my face. Sorry.
1,yes it would have to be perked
2,think you want to milk run (there are huge mega towns/cities in ava)
3,no make them free then i dont need to use my lancstuka on cv's
4,you cant destroy/kill hangers,buildings,countryman if ur on the same team.
5,I agree on that.
6, id agree but they shouldnt carry nukes.
7,doesnt this conflict with ur 4th statement?
8,huh?
ps: I think this a really unique idea I wonder why no one has ever segested it before?:huh
-
Can't believe I have to do this.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
I think they should fix the collision model, and ENY too! :D
-
B-29 absolutely but no nukes just a standard 29 loadout of 20,000 lbs would be nice make bombays only open above 20,000ft so the goobers wont spend all their time divebombing GV's like they do in the lancasters.
-
Before you want a WMD in the game. Itemise a list of ALL the effects it would have on the sector you drop it in. Or do you just want HTC to give you 10Mtons of TNT in one flash(just a cheap thrill)?
Or do you want the ongoing killshooter effect to your game ID for every unintended countrymans death for some time after the explosion. Hows about the sector you drop it in wont rebuild untill after the map is reset?Then all unfortunate players who fly through it by accident die 15 minutes later? And for each one a countryman, you get a killshooter and HTC lets them die to give everyone the full monty on the effects of nuclear fallout?
So you want to force this game into MAD where every night littel greifers drop tallboys and fatman everywhere just to KILL the map? They will work at getting the points for it. That will become the unintended consiquence of bringing nuclear whepons to this game. Just think about summer vacation and nasty littel pre teens with nukes and a grudge against Das Muppets..... or any squad who's members whack their sensitive littel kesters too many times.
Did you even consider HTC's paying customers from Japan?
-
Originally posted by stodd
ps: I think this a really unique idea I wonder why no one has ever segested it before?:huh
it has been several times
-
Originally posted by bustr
Did you even consider HTC's paying customers from Japan?
If you're going to make an argument based off of this....I don't know where to begin. :rolleyes:
-
I think it should be added. The B-29 itself should be heavily perked and a nuke should require 2000 perkies. This would keep it a rare event.
Of course if it were made realistic, nobody could take or defend that base or be anywhere around it for quite some time without getting an instant pilot wound from radiation exposure.....and think of all the blind pilots who watched it :rofl
Really, a nuke will likely never be in AH, but I'm not ruling out a '29. HTC listens to requests (like any other wise business owner) and constantly adds/adjusts accordingly. That aircraft would be a worthy and historic addition, IMO.
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
only two were dropped in wartime, and that choice is still being debated, yet peeps want to add it to a dogfighting game.:rolleyes:
Comon Sky, let them have it. I can think of some interesting ways to have fun with it.
Think killshooter :rofl They will never be able to safely drop it anywhere :rofl
-
Thanks for your (mostly) gentle replies.
Appears to be a hotly debated topic, and your guidance on doing additional research answered many of my questions.
I do agree that offending our Japanese friends would be a big concern...I'm a hug fan of the Japanese culture and have many friends from that part of the world.
Nevertheless, the concept still has some appeal to me.
Perhaps "leveling the field" by adding the correct IJN bomber to carry Baka bombs and adding V2 missiles should be considered. Could bring a whole other element to the game...or it could it make it a ridiculous add on to what is supposed to be a dogfighting game, in essence.
It could utilize a system whereby you are given "rank" based on your length of tenure COMBINED with your monthly score averages, then only allow senior ranks to access these weapons? Or, perhaps by disallowing "Newbies" to access these weapons, perhaps only squad C/O's to designate the individual, might work to prevent misuse/abuse.
I know, it's a lot of work for HTC who has already produced one of the best games ever released.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing the background with me. As veterans, we Newbies look to your for guidance, history and insight into the game.
-
It would be the ultimate addition to Aces High. Start and Reset the map without even taking off!
Just drop the Nuke while sitting on your own runway. Think of the Perk Points!
Everyone logs on to the same side and 10 seconds later gets their perk points, over and over and over again.
HTC can make millions. "Play the game you don't have to do anything to win! No ability neccesary!"
Just log on and collect your points!
Why has no one asked for Nukes before?
-
If the B29 w/n00k was EVER released it should only be available at the most far back fields on the map, and at a very high perk price.
-
Originally posted by craig666
Thanks for your (mostly) gentle replies.
Craig, just so you know for future posts. You are only allowed to post WTGs here and even that is not always safe. Anything else will result into pictures of the search button (because ideas are only allowed to be discussed 1 and only 1 time here, no matter how old they are) or you being called a whiner. :D
-
el oh el
-
Originally posted by JimBeam
it has been several times
nope i typed in b29 and nothing came up so its never ben sugested before:D (turns a blind eye to the 3 other b29 threads created this week in wishlist):aok
-
I was recently talking to a friend of a friend who said that he had heard from his cousins buddy who was told by some guy in prison who was doin time for industrial espionage for spying on this guy who owned a flight sim company who told his girlfriend who told her "real" boyfriend that they were gonna put a Nook in Aces High within 2 weeks.
But I was kinda drunk so I mighta heard it wrong.
Hungover,
Boner
-
Boner's post has made me less of a skeptic.
...Im daring to beleive.
-
the B29 SHOULD be added at some point, as a fairly highly perked buff, but there should be no nuke. it shouldn't be handicapped by the game (bomb bay doors only opening above 20k etc.)
this is a realistic and historically accurate game, it should be modelled just like any other plane. the b29 was a significant model and should be added.
i would like to see it with a fair perk though. not as much as the ar234, but enough to stop it from being used constantly.
-
Originally posted by craig666
Thanks for your (mostly) gentle replies.
Appears to be a hotly debated topic, and your guidance on doing additional research answered many of my questions.
I do agree that offending our Japanese friends would be a big concern...I'm a hug fan of the Japanese culture and have many friends from that part of the world.
Nevertheless, the concept still has some appeal to me.
Perhaps "leveling the field" by adding the correct IJN bomber to carry Baka bombs and adding V2 missiles should be considered. Could bring a whole other element to the game...or it could it make it a ridiculous add on to what is supposed to be a dogfighting game, in essence.
It could utilize a system whereby you are given "rank" based on your length of tenure COMBINED with your monthly score averages, then only allow senior ranks to access these weapons? Or, perhaps by disallowing "Newbies" to access these weapons, perhaps only squad C/O's to designate the individual, might work to prevent misuse/abuse.
I know, it's a lot of work for HTC who has already produced one of the best games ever released.
Anyway, thanks again for sharing the background with me. As veterans, we Newbies look to your for guidance, history and insight into the game.
the b29 was a significant and fairly numerous model. it had quite a large impact on the war. however, the nuke, even though it 'ended' the war, was only ever dropped twice, and didn't actually do much in terms of war effort. it would be unbalancing in AH, there's absolutely no need for it.
yes to the b29, i would love to see it implimented, but a big NO to the nuke. it'd be used lots in AH compared to the twice in all of human history that it was used in real life.
i don't ever want to see the nuke in AH
-
Originally posted by Major Biggles
The B29 SHOULD be added, as a perked buff, but there should be no nuke. It shouldn't be handicapped by the game (bomb bay doors only opening above 20k etc.)
This is a realistic and historically accurate game, it should be modelled just like any other plane. The B29 was a significant model and should be added.
I would like to see it with a fair perk though. Not as much as the ar234, but enough to stop it from being used constantly.
Make all the bomb bay doors of all the heavy bombers operational above 5K. You fly lower, they close.
B-29 would be sweet. No nuke of course. I'm with Biggs on this one, but would have no objection to a 25K door open/close gimmick.
-
Some good idea sharing going on here.
But nobody addressed the Baka bomb and V2 scenarios. Your thoughts?
-
Make B29 maps where they launch from islands six sectors from the mainland and missions take TIME to get over the IP. Make their only load GP bombs. By the way Curtis LeMay ordered missions to drop from 12k because of the winds at alt scattering the bombs.
-
Originally posted by craig666
Some good idea sharing going on here.
But nobody addressed the Baka bomb and V2 scenarios. Your thoughts?
Not familiar with the Baka bomb.
But i'd sure like to see the "Bat Bombs" that were going to be used in the pacific before the nuke came along.
http://www.failedsuccess.com/index.php?/weblog/comments/bat_bombs_world_war_ii/
(http://img258.imageshack.us/img258/4953/batbomb5iu9.jpg)
Failed success.com
-
But I would hate to see HT modle a batman... He would just dress up one of the troops we have now in a batman suit, give him a bomb and send him sliding on his way...
I think a better option would be this...
(http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/images/images-0-50/photo36.jpg)
At least it's a vehicle and I think HTC could modle it well.. Then we could just spawn at a camp and ram the camping tanks, or maybe spawn an army of them and ram town. :D
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
But I would hate to see HT modle a batman... He would just dress up one of the troops we have now in a batman suit, give him a bomb and send him sliding on his way...
I think a better option would be this...
(http://www.safetycenter.navy.mil/photo/images/images-0-50/photo36.jpg)
At least it's a vehicle and I think HTC could modle it well.. Then we could just spawn at a camp and ram the camping tanks, or maybe spawn an army of them and ram town. :D
I spit coffee all OVER my monitor when I saw your post! Good one!
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Can't believe I have to do this.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
We don't do it so you have a reason to stay.:D
-
I still think this photo is funny as well:rofl
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/grimsfx/stugs.jpg)
-
I have no problem with the addition of the B-29. Heavy perk the hell out of it though. An absolute, unwavering, without doubt, unforgiving, unrelenting, non-stop, never-say-die, super huge NO to the nuke. It is just not needed in this game.
Oink
-
Yep, that picture is funny.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
We don't do it so you have a reason to stay.:D
Pfftt, you'd think collision whines would be enough. ;)
-
i dont have a problem with the nuke, as long as you allow the Axis side to perfect and bomb, the ever-living daylights out of the Allied side with V-1 and V-2 rockets.
We already have our heavy water plants set up and our atomic development crew is on standby with enriched uranium.
As an American citizen with German heritage.... ok i was born in nuremburg, i would be totally offended if a nuke is given without the V-1 and V-2 program in full Swing in AVA!!!
make sure you also send small pox infected blankets to the american indians and dont forget to slaughter the sheep from passing trains too.
This Public Service announcement has be brought to you by JG54
-
Originally posted by captain1ma
i dont have a problem with the nuke, as long as you allow the Axis side to perfect and bomb, the ever-living daylights out of the Allied side with V-1 and V-2 rockets.
We already have our heavy water plants set up and our atomic development crew is on standby with enriched uranium.
As an American citizen with German heritage.... ok i was born in nuremburg, i would be totally offended if a nuke is given without the V-1 and V-2 program in full Swing in AVA!!!
make sure you also send small pox infected blankets to the american indians and dont forget to slaughter the sheep from passing trains too.
This Public Service announcement has be brought to you by JG54
Oh god, please, next time, read through all of the other posts' first...
-
Originally posted by Hap
B29, yes! Nuke, no! Make 25K min alt for bomb bays to open or some such similar arrangement.
I really like this. There are folks who do like to bomb. Strat bombing was just a little part of the war. Fighters did mostly things like accompany bombers not furball with unlimited uppers.:D
The high alt would also make more use of the 163 and 262.
The nuke thing did happen in WWII and for good reason! At least one of my two uncles came home after the war thanks to the bomb. However since it was only dropped twice, it would be unrealistic to have nukes going off all over the place in Aces. THINK OF THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECTS TOO:rofl
-
Originally posted by bustr
Make B29 maps where they launch from islands six sectors from the mainland and missions take TIME to get over the IP. Make their only load GP bombs. By the way Curtis LeMay ordered missions to drop from 12k because of the winds at alt scattering the bombs.
EXCELLENT POINT. But really, dont you think we need jdams in a WWII based game? :rofl
-
im scared im only the 3rd to do this...
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
Originally posted by captain1ma
...As an American citizen with German heritage.... ok i was born in nuremburg, i would be totally offended if a nuke is given without the V-1 and V-2 program in full Swing in AVA!!!...
No nuke is ever going to show up, therefore forget about your V1 or V2. Hitech already said, no bombs over 2 tons.
P.S. Are you proud of your Lufthansa A340-211 Nuremberg (D-AIBA)?:D
-
Yes you are nuts. That would sorta make base taking a mute point. Some one would get mad and BOOM we would need a new map to play on as no one would be able to up with the RADs we would take. we would all die faster then HTC could change the maps LOL you would give the server a melt down.:rofl
-
Refer to this as to what happens AFTER the nuke is dropped:
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
Can you guess, or do I have to tell you?:)
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
only two were dropped in wartime, and that choice is still being debated, yet peeps want to add it to a dogfighting game.:rolleyes:
Ya know, we could solve any number of problems with a single solution. The Douglas MB-1/AIR-2 Genie.
1. Huge bomber formations. Gone.
2. Huge furballs. Gone.
3. Skyrock. Gone.
4. Cherry pickers. Gone.
5. Marauding CVs. Gone.
6. Skyrock. Well...you get the idea.
-
Havent been on BBS here for a while (Except for this last week)
As long as we are talking Nooks and B29s. How long has it been since the Subs Discussions have gone around?
I thought Sub Battles with the CVs was a cool idea.
-
Search to find out.
-
10) At the very least, a B29 with fire bombs would be cool, again, assuming cities were added to the game.
Your thoughts?
[/B][/QUOTE/]
I'm not sure about the nuke part but I do agree with you on the fire bombs and the B-29 in general. But I'm still not sure if I would want a nuke.
-
Alright, I heard from some interesting sources that we're getting it in 2 weeks. Stop your fussing, it's all over.:cry
AH will never be the same!
-
However not RELIABLE sources thought right? I got interesting sources telling me all kinds of things. A B29 in this game is not one of them :rofl
-
AND if we do get the B29. It needs to have FIRE POWER FROM HELL!!!:t :mad: So that it can defend itself:D
-
Oh they're reliable, you simply haven't met them.
-
My own fodness for the B29 has nothing to do with how many bombs it can tote or what sort.
Would think the view is stunning from the pilot's chair.
-
Originally posted by Denholm
Alright, I heard from some interesting sources that we're getting it in 2 weeks. Stop your fussing, it's all over.:cry
AH will never be the same!
yup two weeks:aok
-
WHY DO THESE NOOOOOOOBZ WANT A NUKE??!! It would blow up a part of a friggen MAP. :furious
-
It would? If it blew up the entire map, maybe we could get some new ones.:noid
-
All i really need to say is, WHERE THE HECK IS THE B-29!!!
i am pretty sure it usto be in the game but it is unclear why in the WWOORRLLDD they got rid of it...i think it would be awesome. And ofcourse there would be no A-bomb. But if hitech wanted the A-bomb, it would be reasonable to make it like 750-950 perks on average and make the B-29 like 300 perks on average
:furious :aok
-
dude i totally agree :aok
-
Ther IS a Beh-29 in teh game but Im not teling u wher!!!1111
Nanernanernanernanernaner!!!!!!!111eleventyone1111
-
Ther IS a Beh-29 in teh game but Im not teling u wher!!!1111
Nanernanernanernanernaner!!!!!!!111eleventyone1111
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/b29.jpg)
:noid :noid
-
:t
-
Damb U Bronk!1!1!!!! SHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!11!!11!!!
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
i believe the serch button is the answer
:noid :noid :noid
-
The pic must be of a secret B-29. From what i see, its Flying over land when on the map its flying over water. Now I will be chasing dots that dont exist and when im finally there at the dot, I will see a orange glow from the n00k that just blasted my HQ . :O
-
Net lag.
:noid
-
That screenshot wasnt from Aces Hgh. Ive been around long enough to know about that. :D
-
I take credit for the B-29 cockpit shot too
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/71_1159118351_747-400.jpg)
-
h338 Bronk is probably testing the b39 model for htc. We will get it someday. :rock
-
I take credit for the B-29 cockpit shot too
Furby your bait is working better 4 me . ;)
-
i think we could use it just no nuke. :noid
-
B29..... NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKIEWEDCNJ@E*(Y@(EF BIG B)O0Oo0)OOmMmMMM!#@!#E@ OMG@$oscar@$#@ED Pwnage!@12one@$43seven@$#@##@ :salute
-
i dont think the nuke is needed you could level town in 1 pass with a flight of 3 b29s
-
Beh-32!!! Beh-32!11!! Beh-32!1!1!!!!11!!
it dohmnates!1!!!
-
Beh-32!!! Beh-32!11!! Beh-32!1!1!!!!11!!
it dohmnates!1!!!
well since we are being stupid....
I WUNT DER BEE36 OR DER BEE60 WITTHH DAH SEVENTEE FOR THOSAND POUND BOMB LOAD!!!!!!!!!!!!
oh and Isnt the B-32 basically like a b24 with a single tail?
-
Yeah, if the B-24 had a 20,000 lbs. bomb load and a single tail. Hey, wait, that sounds like teh beh-29!!1!!!!!1!
-
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
[:
-
IM SSSOOO CONFUSED :huh :cry
i shoulda never posted this snausage
hahahahahahaa :rofl
-
but we do need the heinkel 111 and dornier 17...definitly :)
-
but we do need the heinkel 111 and dornier 17...definitly :)
agreed.
-
All i really need to say is, WHERE THE HECK IS THE B-29!!!
i am pretty sure it usto be in the game but it is unclear why in the WWOORRLLDD they got rid of it...i think it would be awesome. And ofcourse there would be no A-bomb. But if hitech wanted the A-bomb, it would be reasonable to make it like 750-950 perks on average and make the B-29 like 300 perks on average
:furious :aok
tish is teh bestest idee evar!!!11!!2
-
i think 20,000 IB of bombs is enough for me
-
that b29 cockpit shot is actualy from something else, i just dont remember were i saw it
-
but we do need the heinkel 111...
Amen.
-
WHERE THE HECK IS THE B-29!!!
I heard we are getting this in.....2 weeks no joke seeriusly and it gona have a N00K11eleventy1
-
That screenshot wasnt from Aces Hgh. Ive been around long enough to know about that. :D
H338, I Agree with you! Bronks' B29 shot was from Flight Simulator X or 2004. But then Bronk copied and pasted the Aces High Clipboard into the picture.
-
H338, I Agree with you! Bronks' B29 shot was from Flight Simulator X or 2004. But then Bronk copied and pasted the Aces High Clipboard into the picture.
no its not thats clearley aces high.....
:noid :noid
-
H338, I Agree with you! Bronks' B29 shot was from Flight Simulator X or 2004. But then Bronk copied and pasted the Aces High Clipboard into the picture.
You need a history lesson.
-
You need a history lesson.
Indeed. It was clearly back in AH1 where we had the B29. The chipboard map was a glitch we had.
-
H338, I Agree with you! Bronks' B29 shot was from Flight Simulator X or 2004. But then Bronk copied and pasted the Aces High Clipboard into the picture.
Actually it was IL2. If you read the text buffer i intended it as a bit of a joke, not a serious fake.
<edit: NM - someone has blanked over the text buffer - i had a stupid conversation between superdud and myself there on the original>
-
This is atleast the 3rd thread about this aircraft I have seen this week alone. :frown:
-
It must be Spring Break!
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/b29.jpg)
:noid :noid
thats fs2004 with u cutting the CLIPBOARD OUT and pasting in the image.
-
thats fs2004 with u cutting the CLIPBOARD OUT and pasting in the image.
You are wrong.
Edit: I would at this time like to thank Furball, without him none of this would be possible. :devil
-
thats fs2004 with u cutting the CLIPBOARD OUT and pasting in the image.
I play FS2004, I know thats nothing near the textures I have (I have detail sliders maxed out.)
-
I play FS2004, I know thats nothing near the textures I have (I have detail sliders maxed out.)
looks like a WOP B-29 cockpit. I fly fs2004. I know that is too good for aces high.
-
Wow... they still dont get it. Wheres a smiley shaking his head.
-
The line is not even in the water, and yet the fish keep jumping into the boat.
-
The line is not even in the water, and yet the fish keep jumping into the boat.
The trick is a properly set drag. ;)
-
nooo B-29! sure it is a cool plane but it would be way to easy to kill HQ's or level a base with it.
-
oh and Isnt the B-32 basically like a b24 with a single tail?
No, not even close. B-32 actually looks more like a larger B-26 with 4 engines , IMO anyway
-
B-32...
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/800px-B-32_Dominator.jpg)
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/B-32.jpg)
-
B-24
(http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t92/Airscrew/b24aerial.jpg)
-
B-29 needs to be added. I doubt that HTC will add the NOOK but they may add the alternative ordinance. im not sure what it can take though
-
i have i book on the b32, it was supposed to be a back up plan if the b-29 sucked, but it didnt, and the b-32 liked to fall apart alot
-
B-29 was just a crappy copy of the soviet Tu-4.
-
B-29 was just a crappy copy of the soviet Tu-4.
You yanking our chain? The B-29 came first, bro.
Wikipedia article on Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)
-
See what a properly set drag can do. ;)
-
You yanking our chain? The B-29 came first, bro.
Wikipedia article on Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)
Sarcasm, bud. :D
-
If You Want A B-29 Get a Tu (If We Get It :mad:) And Skin Out The Red Star :lol
They'll Never Know
-
You yanking our chain? The B-29 came first, bro.
Wikipedia article on Tu-4 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-4)
Everyone knows that wiki is full of lies because anyone can write in it.
-
Yeah, Image A Dictionary Based Off In The Heads Of People Like... Eskimojoe? :O Imagine The Casualties.
-
See what a properly set drag can do. ;)
I love it, that is too funny. But true...
set your drag, use the right crank bait for the conditions and wham! ya caught one. :cool:
-
If You Want A B-29 Get a Tu (If We Get It :mad:) And Skin Out The Red Star :lol
They'll Never Know
I still wanna know why you guys have such hateful :mad: feelings towards the B-29, you keep saying you dont want the nuke, i dont because it would take away the challenge of trying to bomb bases. Now its speed, yes its top speed is 357, but so what, and its ceiling limit is 36,000, ok first of all i dont think anyone flys that high, hell i dont think anyone bombs at 20,000, its faster than the lanc, its carries 2,000 pounds less, but thats still a hell of a lot of bombs. So please tell me why you dont want it.
-
B-29 was just a crappy copy of the soviet Tu-4.
The B-29 wasnt a copy,the soviets copied it when three landed on russian soil
(saw it on the history channel)
-
Yeah, Image A Dictionary Based Off In The Heads Of People Like... Eskimojoe? :O Imagine The Casualties.
:mad:
-
We don't want it because it revives too many dead threads. :D
-
The B-29 wasnt a copy,the soviets copied it when three landed on russian soil
(saw it on the history channel)
Caught another!
We can get the B-29 but it can only be used as it was historically; low down and in the thick of things.
-
ooh, good cast...
lets see how many more nibbles you get. :aok
-
B29 IS T3H L3333333333333333333333333333 33333333333333T :furious :O :rock :rolleyes: :eek: :P ;)
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii275/zoozoo13/nookie.gif)
-
I still wanna know why you guys have such hateful :mad: feelings towards the B-29, you keep saying you dont want the nuke, i dont because it would take away the challenge of trying to bomb bases. Now its speed, yes its top speed is 357, but so what, and its ceiling limit is 36,000, ok first of all i dont think anyone flys that high, hell i dont think anyone bombs at 20,000, its faster than the lanc, its carries 2,000 pounds less, but thats still a hell of a lot of bombs. So please tell me why you dont want it.
1. People will want the nuke with it.
2. Speed is as fast as some fighters.
3. Bombload is 20,000lbs. 6,000lbs more then the lanc.
4. Armed with 12 .50 cal MGs plus one 20mm cannon or 14 .50cal MG
5. We need other bombers before we get the super leet uber bomber.
I could go on if you want, but those five are really good reasons.
-
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/nookie.gif)
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
-
I wouldn't mind the B-29 in AH under these circumstances:
A:NO NOOK
B:High Perk Cost (I have bomber perks and would like to use them on something other that the 234)
C:Only base that would have them is the same base that has the 163 enabled.
(Optional D): It has the reliabilty as the real 29s did in WWII. :D
-
well if you had its reliability so low why would you need perks. :D
-
410!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
since i have become a member of aces high i have been visiting the website,frequently, and i have noticed that the designers have been putting out only fighter and tanks,so far. i have been talking with other member on aces high about "would it be a good idea for hitechcreations to develop and put out the B-29" out of 100 members that i asked 82% said "yes" and 18% said "no". since your the designers it is up to you about what aircraft goes on the game, but as my opinion as a fellow gamer i think it would be a very good idea.
- Sgtcondom
-
WAHOOOOOOOOOO!
what an original idea!
Whuda thunk, a B29 in AH2 :O
.endsarcasm
-
There are sooooo many reasons the B29 should not be in the game, yet at least, among all the other bombers Aces High is missing. You should use the search bar in the top portion of the screen.
-
Is it just me are does a post on B-29 come out every 2 weeks.
-
It would be a great addition to AH. But they arent going to add it cause of a number of reasons. It has twice the ammount of loadout than the 24, it can carry a NOOK!! But yet, HTC just doesnt solve the problem by Perking it More than the 234. But NOOOOO lets just keep wanting to have it.
-
It has more than twice the ordnance loadout of the 24 (20,000 lbs vs. 8,000 lbs), its super fast at altitude, its got an insane armament (2x ,50s and a 20mm in the tail!), and is heavily armored. Its essentially invincible unless you catch someone sleeping in it. Plus, it served a comparitively small part in the war vs. the He-111, Pe-2, Ju-52 etc...
-
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii275/zoozoo13/nookie.gif)
-
SERCH BUTTON!!!!!
-
Lets see the names of these 82 people and the other 18!!
I bet you only asked a few and they were all relatively new to Aces High.
I really think you found 1 guy who said yes and asked him another 81 times.
-
Lets see the names of these 82 people and the other 18!!
I bet you only asked a few and they were all relatively new to Aces High.
I really think you found 1 guy who said yes and asked him another 81 times.
Nevermind :noid
-
thats a good posibility
nevermind lol
-
It has more than twice the ordnance loadout of the 24 (20,000 lbs vs. 8,000 lbs), its super fast at altitude, its got an insane armament (2x ,50s and a 20mm in the tail!), and is heavily armored. Its essentially invincible unless you catch someone sleeping in it. Plus, it served a comparitively small part in the war vs. the He-111, Pe-2, Ju-52 etc...
A small part? About 4,000 were made and they flew combat missions for about 15 months of the last stage of the war. They flew 34,000 sorties and dropped 160,000 tons of bombs on Japan single handily destroying or damaging almost all their cities and industrial production. Of course all of it ending with the atomic bomb attacks. The B-29 basically destroyed Japanese capability to conduct modern war.
A "comparatively small part"? Boy I dont know where you got that idea from.
-
A small part? About 4,000 were made and they flew combat missions for about 15 months of the last stage of the war. They flew 34,000 sorties and dropped 160,000 tons of bombs on Japan single handily destroying or damaging almost all their cities and industrial production. Of course all of it ending with the atomic bomb attacks. The B-29 basically destroyed Japanese capability to conduct modern war.
A "comparatively small part"? Boy I dont know where you got that idea from.
ok i dont want the nuke, i dont know why you guys keep saying the nuke, the 29 is NOT invincible ok. Just because it cruises a little bit and goes a little faster doesnt mean its the end of the war ok. AND PLEASE QUIT WITH THE NUKE! ty.
-
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii275/zoozoo13/nookie.gif)
Dam...you beat me to it :(
-
A small part? About 4,000 were made and they flew combat missions for about 15 months of the last stage of the war. They flew 34,000 sorties and dropped 160,000 tons of bombs on Japan single handily destroying or damaging almost all their cities and industrial production. Of course all of it ending with the atomic bomb attacks. The B-29 basically destroyed Japanese capability to conduct modern war.
A "comparatively small part"? Boy I dont know where you got that idea from.
No to b29. I'll say it 81 times. End of story. It would make the rest of the BUFFS hangar queens. One B29 would carry as much as an entire set of B24's. The current set of bombers is quite enough... notice how all the veteran players are against it. One plane should not change the entire game.
I get the feeling those that want the B29 are the same ones that fly at 38K on HQ missions at 330 in the morning... All words and afraid of the fight. You already have laser bombsights and gunnery positions... now you want 3x the bombs too? In WW2 it took 300 bombers to put three 500lb bombs within blast radius of a target.... you can hit a single building with a single bomb consistently without any real practice at all, in AH2.
The B29 has not been modelled for good reason.
-
B-29???? Sure, perked around 300 apiece. :D
-
B-29???? Sure, perked around 300 apiece. :D
add one or two more zeros.
-
add one or two more zeros.
Why the hell do we need more zeros
-
B-29???? Sure, perked around 300 apiece. :D
put a one and two zeroes on that and you've got a deal
-
Why the hell do we need more zeros
:rofl
-
:rofl
i just think we need a 29 more than a zero, i mean just what need is more knight killers lol
-
i just think we need a 29 more than a zero, i mean just what need is more knight killers lol
It was funny because I didn't mean the A6M zero. I meant the number 0. as in the B29 is fine if its 30000 perks.
-
since i have become a member of aces high i have been visiting the website,frequently, and i have noticed that the designers have been putting out only fighter and tanks,so far. i have been talking with other member on aces high about "would it be a good idea for hitechcreations to develop and put out the B-29" out of 100 members that i asked 82% said "yes" and 18% said "no". since your the designers it is up to you about what aircraft goes on the game, but as my opinion as a fellow gamer i think it would be a very good idea.
- Sgtcondom
alright, look here is the thing, I'm atleast not going to be a sweetheart about it like nearly EVERYONE else about this (there are the few nice exeptions). There is a few things that everyone wants that HTC is not going to give them. 1. Is the B-29 2. Is night. 3. Kamakizis. 4. Perked La-7 5. Battleship.
Since I'm sure that half of these dweebs that will end up making fun of you had posted this before, I'm just preparing you for the "forum beating" to come. There is always this group of players that scan for this just to put "you are a dweeb" or "N00B!."
Since I'm trying to be as nice as I can, and before this thread is locked, you gonna get alot of hell.
p.s. I've posted dweebish stuff like this when I started the forums :D
Dont let it bother you.
-
p.s. I've posted dweebish stuff like this when I started the forums :D
What do you mean when you started, you still do :D
-
No to b29. I'll say it 81 times. End of story. It would make the rest of the BUFFS hangar queens. One B29 would carry as much as an entire set of B24's. The current set of bombers is quite enough... notice how all the veteran players are against it. One plane should not change the entire game.
I get the feeling those that want the B29 are the same ones that fly at 38K on HQ missions at 330 in the morning... All words and afraid of the fight. You already have laser bombsights and gunnery positions... now you want 3x the bombs too? In WW2 it took 300 bombers to put three 500lb bombs within blast radius of a target.... you can hit a single building with a single bomb consistently without any real practice at all, in AH2.
The B29 has not been modelled for good reason.
LOL, um, in case you didn't notice, he wasn't directly asking for the B-29. He was just pointing out how it had a larger contribution to the war effort then some have made it out to seem.
donkey
-
I do not know if it has already been thought of, but what if there was no option for drones and a purely conventional payload, and restricted launchable bases like the 163? Just thinking people then can not menace a base with just 1 formation, and at the same time they will be interceptable because it will just be a single ship and not have 3 sets of guns trained on the attacker. Not to mention since they would up from rear bases they would not be a constant hastle. :D
-
since i have become a member of aces high i have been visiting the website,frequently, and i have noticed that the designers have been putting out only fighter and tanks,so far.
Not frequently enough, it seems. I'll even keep it to just formation ones:
A-20G
B-17G
B-24J
B-25C
B-25H
B-26B
Boston Mk III
Lancaster III
Ju 88A-4
Ki-67
-
No to b29. I'll say it 81 times. End of story. It would make the rest of the BUFFS hangar queens. One B29 would carry as much as an entire set of B24's. The current set of bombers is quite enough... notice how all the veteran players are against it. One plane should not change the entire game.
I get the feeling those that want the B29 are the same ones that fly at 38K on HQ missions at 330 in the morning... All words and afraid of the fight. You already have laser bombsights and gunnery positions... now you want 3x the bombs too? In WW2 it took 300 bombers to put three 500lb bombs within blast radius of a target.... you can hit a single building with a single bomb consistently without any real practice at all, in AH2.
The B29 has not been modelled for good reason.
"Yes" to the B-29. And I'll say it 82 times the reason being is I pay the same $ per month as you do and have as much right to say what I want as you do. Nor do I speak for "all the veteran players" who pay the same $ as the noobs do to play this game, and most of whom I'll bet could care less if the 29 was in the game.
The ones who "fly 38k on HQ missions at 0330 in the morning" are the highly ranked score guys who need a minimum of times in a bomber to get a high bomber rank for their overall ranks. And they can do all this already in Lancs and B-17s or 24s. So why would they risk perked B-29s? Go ahead and ask them cause the real bomber sticks are attacking front line targets with 4 cons on their tails already. Perked B-29s would have no more adverse affect on the game then perked 262s do.
You should learn to be more accepting of others and their opinions Moray. Cause as it stands now you just come across as a fool. Just because you dont fly bombers doesnt mean everyone who does should be content with what you deem is "enough".
-
The B-29 would be a great plane to fly even with a hefty perk price. I think 200 per bird is a fair price putting it on par with the 262. For all of the arguements of "changing the game" I have something to say. Why do we have the 262, F4U-1C, F4U-4, Spit 14, AR-234 or the Tempest? All can change the face of the game rather easily yet they are being flown everyday. Oh wait....they are perked! Now what does this do? Thats right....keeps them in check.
I ask you this....if a perked B-29 would change the game why on earth are the planes above in?
The B-29 dropped many thousands of standard bombs and would have dropped much more had we invaded Japan. Would you still shun the B-29 if it had been a B-24 dropping the nukes? Most want to fly the B-29 for one reason.....it was the BEST prop bomber used in WW2. Personally I would love to see the B-29 and nuke for many reasons. The whines when a nuke hit would be priceless. For gameplay issues I agree with not having the Atom bomb however. As far as the B-29.....go for it!
Moray.....sounds like you have a case of the whineritis. HQ missions at ANY time of day are suicidal when there are more than 75 people on. The Lancaster carries 14,000 lbs and the B-29 carries 20,000lbs or so? Hardly the 3X you talk about. I think you (like most others) dont want it are too lazy to climb and kill it ther for dont want it all together
Strip
-
Ok so weekly we all see the B-29 post, I want a the B-29, I don't want the B-29, ect ect. So I thought, why not see what a selection of the players think in a mutliple choice questionaire. Sorry, would have just done a poll, but I guess that went away with the new forum. So Please just be an adult so to speak and answer the poll questions.
1)Would you like to see the B-29 added to the LW Arenas?
a:No, I would not like to see it.
b:Yes, I'd like to have the B-29 added to the LW Arenas
c:I really don't care, either way
2)If the B-29 was added to the MA, should it be in a single bomber form? (Like the Ar234)
a:Yes, bomber form (Formations disabled)
b:No, a set of B-29s...wahoo or something.
c:Yes but each plane will cost ya :devil
3)If ENY equals 0 what should the average perk value be per bomber?
a:100-200
b:200-300
c:300-400
4)If the B-29 were to be added, should it be limited to one base for launch (Like the 163s)
a:Launch only from an uncapturable field.
b:Launch it anywhere, I'd enjoy the whines on 200 for vulching a B-29 on take off
Just answer, and well see a little bit of what people think.
-
1.C
2.A
3.C
4.A
See simple :aok
-
1. A
That's all that must be told.
-
Now where in the heck can we get the idea to add another heavy bomber to the already superior American Bomber Plane Set? Let's fill up the Italian, German, Japanese, and Russian Bomber Plane Sets before we go galloping off to give the Americans all the tools and armor.
-
1. A
That's all that must be told.
:aok :aok
-
If you had a room that only had 29's and jet's I just might vote for it....ehh maybe not... HTC has better things to do.. :D
-
mark you down as an A since you failed to follow instructions.
-
A
A
C
B
-
Let me add my voice to the pro-B-29A group.
Mind you, we need other bombers first, Pe-2, Tu-2, G4M2, S.M.-79-II, He111, Wellington B.Mk III and Ju188 all stand out as higher priority to me.
But the idea that the B-29A should never be added is absurd. It was a very important aircraft that saw heavy service and was produced in the thousands. Of course it will need to be perked, and at arelatively high cost. Of course it will not have a nuke as a load anymore, less in fact, than the Lancaster Mk III has the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' as an option. To constantly rebuff the B-29A request due to the nuke is ridiculous as they are 100% separate issues.
Some people claim the B-29A would need to be perked outrageously high, say 3,000 per plane or some such, because they say it would be nigh indestructible. This is false. It would be very survivable, for a bomber, but far from indestructable. If used at medium or low altitude it could be easily destroyed by a Bf110 or Mosquito VI. The Typhoon, La-7, Fw190D-9 and Bf109K-4 would all be effective against it at low and medium altitudes. If the B-29A player spends the time to climb to high alt then the Ta152H and P-47N would both be effective. Adding perk planes in, the Tempest and F4U-1C at low alt and the Spitfire Mk XIV at high alt, and the Me262 and Me163 at any alt would also be effective B-29A killers. Remember, the B-29A has a wingloading of 80lbs/sq.ft. and is not at all a B-17 in agility at altitude.
-
Now where in the heck can we get the idea to add another heavy bomber to the already superior American Bomber Plane Set? Let's fill up the Italian, German, Japanese, and Russian Bomber Plane Sets before we go galloping off to give the Americans all the tools and armor.
I agree. I'd rather see some Russian medium bombers. But...my love is for medium bombers be they Yank, Russian, Japanese, German...whatever. However I would never say the 29 should "not" be in the game.
Lose 750 perks on a 3-pack of 29s and see how anxious you are to take up another set. When I left the game due to wife ack I lost 5,000 bomber perks and have only rebuilt a small amount back. I'd fly 29s but rarely. 95% of the guys in this game just dont have the patience to climb to 30,000' anyways.
Having B-29s would turn the game more into an actual war sim instead of just a A1-A19 furball on one end of the uterus. Hopefully it will eventually be in the game. However I would like to see Russian bombers first.
-
1, B
2, B but perked heavily
3, B
4, B
-
mark you down as an A since you failed to follow instructions.
No I dont want to see a dent in the voting card chad thingy. Its a no vote of instructions werent followed. :uhoh
-
There are sooooo many reasons the B29 should not be in the game, yet at least, among all the other bombers Aces High is missing. You should use the search bar in the top portion of the screen.
I think maybe you should be a little less condenscending. That being said there are so many ways to offset the added abilities of the B29 (perks, limited bases, more bases for the 163's and so on), and it only has 25% more ord than the lancaster.
-
A small part? About 4,000 were made and they flew combat missions for about 15 months of the last stage of the war. They flew 34,000 sorties and dropped 160,000 tons of bombs on Japan single handily destroying or damaging almost all their cities and industrial production. Of course all of it ending with the atomic bomb attacks. The B-29 basically destroyed Japanese capability to conduct modern war.
A "comparatively small part"? Boy I dont know where you got that idea from.
All that the B29 did could have been done with the B24 and the B17. By the time it showed up, Japan was already in its death throes. The B29 far from ended the war, it just quickened the process.
On the other hand, the He111 and Pe2 (among others) were the workhorse bombers of their respective countries. The Ju52 (not specifically a bomber, but another example of what I think we need) was a REAL workhorse in every sense of the word, being the Luftwaffe's main transport, a bomber during the Spanish Civil War (as well as the 111 was), and a very important civilian transport as well. Did it play a larger part in the war than the B29, in my opinion? Most certainly! A much larger part.
BTW, the atom bombs were 8k lbs weren't they? Couldnt they have been dropped by B24's had the B29 not been available?
I think maybe you should be a little less condenscending. That being said there are so many ways to offset the added abilities of the B29 (perks, limited bases, more bases for the 163's and so on), and it only has 25% more ord than the lancaster.
I was MUCH less condescending than the other first 5-6 replies on this thread.
-
The Ar234 has a formation option, by the way. But...
A
A
C
A
-
1. A
2. C
3. C
4. B
-
No B-29s until bombers are FORCED to fly at historic cruise speeds.
B-24s in this game already break 300mph regularly.
-
Is it just me are does a post on B-29 come out every 2 weeks.
Here is a list of dates of B-29 posts its amazing.
March 15, 2008
March 14, 2008
Yesterday
Today
and thats within 1 month
-
Krusty, 5.0 asked you to respond with your answers to the poll, not a statement as to why you do or do not want the B-29. :)
-
1)Would you like to see the B-29 added to the LW Arenas?
c:I really don't care, either way
2)If the B-29 was added to the MA, should it be in a single bomber form? (Like the Ar234)
c:Yes but each plane will cost ya
3)If ENY equals 0 what should the average perk value be per bomber?
c:300-400
4)If the B-29 were to be added, should it be limited to one base for launch (Like the 163s)
a:Launch only from an uncapturable field.
-
#1 A
#2 A
#3 C
#4 A
-
Krusty, 5.0 asked you to respond with your answers to the poll, not a statement as to why you do or do not want the B-29. :)
Yeah yeah. Follow my instructions. Answer my questions the way I want. This isn't a dead horse. Giddyup.
D. We all waste our time differently.
;)
-
I think its fair to say that the B-29 belongs in the game for historical and gameplay reasons.
Should dozen planes come before it? Sure
Should it make it in a some point? Absolutly
Strip
-
1. B
2. A or B (200 perks just like 262)
3. B
4. B
Strip
-
All that the B29 did could have been done with the B24 and the B17. By the time it showed up, Japan was already in its death throes. The B29 far from ended the war, it just quickened the process.
...
BTW, the atom bombs were 8k lbs weren't they? Couldnt they have been dropped by B24's had the B29 not been available?
No, the B-24 did not have adequate range. To lift the atomic bombs would have also required modifications like the Lancaster had for the 22,000lb bomb, e.g. removal of the bomb bay doors and allowing the atomic bombs to be hung half in and half under the belly.
Eventually the B-29A should be added, but it will be a huge task for HTC and there is no immediate need for it.
-
Krusty, 5.0 asked you to respond with your answers to the poll, not a statement as to why you do or do not want the B-29. :)
He's asking nonsense questions.
First he asks if you would like it. Then he assumes you do, asking "if it's included" but then gives options that make no sense
The Ar234 has formations. He says "no formations, like the Ar234" then he gives another option "no, give them formations" then he gives another option "yes, formations, but you have to pay for each"
Well, 1) the Ar234 has drones already in this game. He's giving a false comparison. 2) obviously the B24 would have formations, so why would you vote to have formations? and 3) you pay additional perks for each drone as-is, that's how it works already for the Ar234.
I figured with such scattered and inaccurate thoughts that he wasn't being serious or COULDN'T be taken seriously, and voiced an opinion relevant to the topic at hand and on-subject.
So my response was valid.
-
1)Would you like to see the B-29 added to the LW Arenas?
b:Yes, I'd like to have the B-29 added to the LW Arenas
2)If the B-29 was added to the MA, should it be in a single bomber form? (Like the Ar234)
a:Yes, bomber form (Formations disabled)
3)If ENY equals 0 what should the average perk value be per bomber?
b:200-300
4)If the B-29 were to be added, should it be limited to one base for launch (Like the 163s)
b:Launch it anywhere, I'd enjoy the whines on 200 for vulching a B-29 on take off
-
B-29s are ugly
-
He's asking nonsense questions.
First he asks if you would like it. Then he assumes you do, asking "if it's included" but then gives options that make no sense
The Ar234 has formations. He says "no formations, like the Ar234" then he gives another option "no, give them formations" then he gives another option "yes, formations, but you have to pay for each"
Well, 1) the Ar234 has drones already in this game. He's giving a false comparison. 2) obviously the B24 would have formations, so why would you vote to have formations? and 3) you pay additional perks for each drone as-is, that's how it works already for the Ar234.
I figured with such scattered and inaccurate thoughts that he wasn't being serious or COULDN'T be taken seriously, and voiced an opinion relevant to the topic at hand and on-subject.
So my response was valid.
*Runs the data through the Krusty Translator.*
Final product: I am not having a good day! :mad:
P.S. This product retails for $2.39 ;)
-
Let me add my voice to the pro-B-29A group.
Mind you, we need other bombers first, Pe-2, Tu-2, G4M2, S.M.-79-II, He111, Wellington B.Mk III and Ju188 all stand out as higher priority to me.
But the idea that the B-29A should never be added is absurd. It was a very important aircraft that saw heavy service and was produced in the thousands. Of course it will need to be perked, and at arelatively high cost. Of course it will not have a nuke as a load anymore, less in fact, than the Lancaster Mk III has the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' as an option. To constantly rebuff the B-29A request due to the nuke is ridiculous as they are 100% separate issues.
Some people claim the B-29A would need to be perked outrageously high, say 3,000 per plane or some such, because they say it would be nigh indestructible. This is false. It would be very survivable, for a bomber, but far from indestructable. If used at medium or low altitude it could be easily destroyed by a Bf110 or Mosquito VI. The Typhoon, La-7, Fw190D-9 and Bf109K-4 would all be effective against it at low and medium altitudes. If the B-29A player spends the time to climb to high alt then the Ta152H and P-47N would both be effective. Adding perk planes in, the Tempest and F4U-1C at low alt and the Spitfire Mk XIV at high alt, and the Me262 and Me163 at any alt would also be effective B-29A killers. Remember, the B-29A has a wingloading of 80lbs/sq.ft. and is not at all a B-17 in agility at altitude.
Meh, All of the people who do poll for the B-29 before all of these Bombers, Just want that damn nuke without letting HTc develop towards the final B-29........It'll prolly be in AH3 :D
-
All that the B29 did could have been done with the B24 and the B17. By the time it showed up, Japan was already in its death throes. The B29 far from ended the war, it just quickened the process.
Japan was far from defeated when the B29 came along. In fact Germany had not even fallen yet when the first 29s were rolling off the production lines. The B17s and B24s stayed in Europe to finish that job. The B29 was considered for service in Europe but commanders decided to send them all to the PTO instead, because the B17's and B24's would not be as effective against Japan. The leaders saw that, even then, when it was brand new, that the B29 was the superior bomber.
-
Didnt they go on into the korean war or some other war, i forget.
-
It saw action in Korea but was phased out when jets were developed.
-
i can see the b29 in this game, why not, it would have to be a perk and only used in SE and late war, its a deffinate possibility if u ask me, i know tons of people whod love it, no atom bomb though
-
Anyone can see it in the game. Just alot of the older guys are subject to change. And instead of pointing out to the post, hey, there is like 10 million of these posts, they do something immature like "<-search" or "wow noob, thats 'original'"
-
i think we should honor the b29 by adding it, after all it was the most expensive project in all of ww2 and i believe is still the most expensive project so far :aok
-
i think we should honor the b29 by adding it, after all it was the most expensive project in all of ww2 and i believe is still the most expensive project so far :aok
B-2? F-117? V-22?
-
If your talking known declassified military planes the B-2 has by far been the most expensive.
When you expand your quidelines to include all government agencies I would say the Space Shuttle is the most costly government project of similar nature.
Strip
-
noOk!1!
-
Ok so weekly we all see the B-29 post, I want a the B-29, I don't want the B-29, ect ect. So I thought, why not see what a selection of the players think in a mutliple choice questionaire. Sorry, would have just done a poll, but I guess that went away with the new forum. So Please just be an adult so to speak and answer the poll questions.
1)Would you like to see the B-29 added to the LW Arenas?
a:No, I would not like to see it.
b:Yes, I'd like to have the B-29 added to the LW Arenas c:I really don't care, either way
2)If the B-29 was added to the MA, should it be in a single bomber form? (Like the Ar234)
a:Yes, bomber form (Formations disabled)
b:No, a set of B-29s...wahoo or something.
c:Yes but each plane will cost ya :devil
3)If ENY equals 0 what should the average perk value be per bomber?
a:100-200
b:200-300
c:300-400
4)If the B-29 were to be added, should it be limited to one base for launch (Like the 163s)
a:Launch only from an uncapturable field.
b:Launch it anywhere, I'd enjoy the whines on 200 for vulching a B-29 on take off
Just answer, and well see a little bit of what people think.
-
He's asking nonsense questions.
First he asks if you would like it. Then he assumes you do, asking "if it's included" but then gives options that make no sense
The Ar234 has formations. He says "no formations, like the Ar234" then he gives another option "no, give them formations" then he gives another option "yes, formations, but you have to pay for each"
Well, 1) the Ar234 has drones already in this game. He's giving a false comparison. 2) obviously the B24 would have formations, so why would you vote to have formations? and 3) you pay additional perks for each drone as-is, that's how it works already for the Ar234.
I figured with such scattered and inaccurate thoughts that he wasn't being serious or COULDN'T be taken seriously, and voiced an opinion relevant to the topic at hand and on-subject.
So my response was valid.
What on Gods green earth are you blathering about? It was a poll request. Either answer the poll questions or dont answer at all. What the heck does the 234, or the speed of a B-24, have to do with anything?
-
Rich... did you not even READ the original post? He makes a direct correlation to the Ar234, only he's totally wrong as to how the 234 works in-game. He has no idea what he's talking about.
Whatever. Enjoy flogging a deceased equestrian.
P.S. Just to clarify as I leave this thread for the birds, "B-29" is what I meant when typing "B-24." A typo/slip, but probably obvious enough given the subject at hand.
-
1 A
Please stop spamming us with the damn B29 threads
-
All that the B29 did could have been done with the B24 and the B17. By the time it showed up, Japan was already in its death throes. The B29 far from ended the war, it just quickened the process.
Thats what bothers me most about these B-29 threads. These guys are so afraid of it they totally re-write actual history to strengthen their case against them being included in the game.
The first actual combat mission flown by B-29s was on 5 June 1944. Before even D-day. It was also even before we invaded Saipan in the Marianas and before the Marianas Turkey shoot. It was a month before we invaded Guam and a month before we invaded Tinian. It was 4 months before we destroyed the IJN at the Battle of Leyte Gulf, which btw saw the first use of kamikaze by Japanese forces. On June 5'th '44 most of her Pacific empire was still in the hands of Imperial Japan. Her mainland industries and cities were completely intact and the war was far, far from being over in the Pacific. The first actual mission against mainland Japan was on 14 June '44, it being only the 2'nd time their mainland was attacked by bombers. Of course the first was the Doolittle raid.
The "Fat Man" bomb dropped on Nagasaki weighed in at over 10,000 lbs and no other airplane could have flown it to Nagasaki, dropped it, and flown back, other then the B-29.
-
The B29 i think is a definet possibility. Of course no atom bomb but wat about napalm? could destroy factories and towns, and little effect on bases. If they have drones i think is over kill and they should be perked.
reply answer
A) love it
B) hate it
C) il consider
D) dont care
E) other
-
Rich... did you not even READ the original post? He makes a direct correlation to the Ar234, only he's totally wrong as to how the 234 works in-game. He has no idea what he's talking about.
Whatever. Enjoy flogging a deceased equestrian.
P.S. Just to clarify as I leave this thread for the birds, "B-29" is what I meant when typing "B-24." A typo/slip, but probably obvious enough given the subject at hand.
I bow to Krusty, for he has shown me that I made an error in my wording. And because of this error I realize that I am not as perfect as he and I have no clue to what I was talking about, my error, get over it and move along . And for those that complain about beating a dead horse, I do not recall anywhere that the forum rules state that you must respond to every post. For the most part this mini poll was just to see if some people wanted the 29 and under what conditions they would like to see. Instead we get whines and complaints about it. I'm sure most of you can read the title, yes it says B29 in it. If your not interested then please feel free to move along to the next post of something you are intersted in. Thanks and have wonderous day.
-
don't you see there is another B29 thread just under this one ? don't you see there as been 128425204 B29 thread already ?
-
My oh my, please look before you post. There were two other threads on this subject within reading range in the wishlist forum before you posted this.
-
don't you see there is another B29 thread just under this one ? don't you see there as been 128425204 B29 thread already ?
So your answer to the question is?
-
So your answer to the question is?
My answer is : E) Ban the words B-29, B29 , superwhatever from the wishlist forum
-
...When you expand your quidelines to include all government agencies I would say the Space Shuttle is the most costly government project of similar nature.
Strip
I especially enjoy when they use our tax dollars to build some martian rover that is never expected to return, and they did this two times in a row. :mad:
-
I especially enjoy when they use our tax dollars to build some martian rover that is never expected to return, and they did this two times in a row. :mad:
The rover itself is not so expensive, its the trip that costs ^^
-
I still choose to blame NASA for hiring someone to convince the government that performing a multi-billion dollar suicide mission was worth it.
-
Every reference book I have has the B29's ceiling at 31,850 ft and the B17's ceiling at 35,800 ft. I don't see a lot of 17s flying that high.
And sure it's top speed was 358 mph but if you left the throttle jammed to the firewall the engines would catch fire, it's cruising speed was 230 mph.
It wasn't invincible, at the time that it was used most of Japan's best pilots were already dead.
And for the people who are so down on bombers, why do you think they built fighters? Wasn't a fighter's main duty to either attack or defend bombers, recon and attack aircraft?
I just don't think it would make that much of a difference, I agree we should have more axis bombers but would they get flown that much? Just my two cents worth, and besides, after being a member here for 8 years I'd kinda like to move out of the zinc category.
AKwoodee
-
B-29 General characteristics
Primary function High-altitude heavy bomber
Contractor Boeing Airplane Company
Next builders Bell Aircraft, Marietta, Glenn L. Martin
Power plant Four Wrigth R-3350-23 Cyclone 18-cylinder twin-row radials engines
Thrust 4x 2,200 HP 4x 1,641 kW
Wingspan 141.2 ft 43.05 m
Length 99 ft 30.18 m
Height 27.8 ft 8.46 m
Wingarea 1,736 sq ft 161.27 sq m
Weight empty 13,5011 lb 33,795 kg
max. 74,505 lb 61,240 kg
Speed max. 357 mph 575 km/h
cruising 290 mph 467 km/h
Ceiling 36,000 ft 10,973 m
Range 3,250 miles 5,230 km
Armament 1x 20mm cannon, 12x 12.7mm machine gun; 9,072 kg bombs
Crew 10-14
First flight September 21, 1942
Date deployed 1943
Unit cost $639,000
Number built 3,967
Malfunctions are not modeled in game, so fires are out. Buffs now fly at FFT now so you'll have a 357mph, 30k+. Try and intercept that, hell try and intercept B-24s at 30k.
-
Not frequently enough, it seems. I'll even keep it to just formation ones:
A-20G
B-17G
B-24J
B-25C
B-25H
B-26B
Boston Mk III
Lancaster III
Ju 88A-4
Ki-67
:D
-
A small part? About 4,000 were made and they flew combat missions for about 15 months of the last stage of the war. They flew 34,000 sorties and dropped 160,000 tons of bombs on Japan single handily destroying or damaging almost all their cities and industrial production. Of course all of it ending with the atomic bomb attacks. The B-29 basically destroyed Japanese capability to conduct modern war.
A "comparatively small part"? Boy I dont know where you got that idea from.
Take those stats and compare them to the B-17 or B-24, Throw in the JU-88 or HE-111 (Which NEEDS to be in the game LONG before the 29). Now tell me its a "big" contribution. Other bombers are far more urgently needed before we even contemplate adding the b-29.
These things pop up every few days it seems though. Noobs who just joined thinking they NEED the b-29. Let me give you all a word of advice. The Lancaster is your friend. The B-17/24/25/26 is your friend. Or if your like me and enjoy flying other non american/brit planes... The JU-88 or B5N are your friends. The JU-87 is your friend too... just more like a slow friend with a big boom. The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2
-
Is it just me are does a post on B-29 come out every 2 weeks.
i thought it was every other day :lol :lol
-
Take those stats and compare them to the B-17 or B-24, Throw in the JU-88 or HE-111 (Which NEEDS to be in the game LONG before the 29). Now tell me its a "big" contribution. Other bombers are far more urgently needed before we even contemplate adding the b-29.
These things pop up every few days it seems though. Noobs who just joined thinking they NEED the b-29. Let me give you all a word of advice. The Lancaster is your friend. The B-17/24/25/26 is your friend. Or if your like me and enjoy flying other non american/brit planes... The JU-88 or B5N are your friends. The JU-87 is your friend too... just more like a slow friend with a big boom. The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2
you kno, STILL ya coulda been nicer about it. God, atleast be nice to em.
and dont give me that "I'm sick of dealing with this crud!!" and what not, if you're sick of it, dont post anything on it.
-
The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2
BS.....the B-29 would be perked.
Just like the Temp, 262, 234, Spit 14, F4U1-c and F4U-4. Which I might add do NOT "totally ruin AH2".
If you think we need plane gaps filled in.....fine I agree with you. Lets just not cloud the issue here. People let emotions play into disliking the B-29 and disregard its true merits. The B-29 belongs in the game more than the Niki, Ta 152, F4U-1C, WirbleWind, Osty, and a few other planes if you look at just numbers alone.
It has a rightful spot when the time comes.
Strip
-
Take those stats and compare them to the B-17 or B-24, Throw in the JU-88 or HE-111 (Which NEEDS to be in the game LONG before the 29). Now tell me its a "big" contribution. Other bombers are far more urgently needed before we even contemplate adding the b-29.
These things pop up every few days it seems though. Noobs who just joined thinking they NEED the b-29. Let me give you all a word of advice. The Lancaster is your friend. The B-17/24/25/26 is your friend. Or if your like me and enjoy flying other non american/brit planes... The JU-88 or B5N are your friends. The JU-87 is your friend too... just more like a slow friend with a big boom. The word of advice is: Use the current bombers, DONT ask for a bomber that would totally ruin AH2
Gee thanks Relorian. Anything else we should know about what we should want or not want? What we "need" or dont need? Whats our "friend" and what isnt? While you still have time to post I mean.
And thanks for chirping in.
-
Why is it some models make the list an others don't. What makes a WWII Aircraft worthy of being in AHII and other not.
The B-29 was a HUGE FACTOR in ending the war. Hands down. AS WAS the 17, 24, etc on and on. I read almost all of the posts and no one (of course unless I missed it) has given a good reason not to have it other than they don't want it because they are fighter pilot snobs.
Fighters were in support of bombers, not bombers in support of fighters. Keep that in mind. Not that this should be a bomber game. Not at all! I love a good fight like anyone else. I also like bombers too.
We cannot have the 234C because it didnt make combat. But we can't have a Combat bomber (B29) because it somehow is not appealing to the so called senior members? WHAT EVER! Like our 15 bucks are not as worthy?
The one reason I heard of is that the takeoff run of the 29 is longer than the airfields used in AHII. Hitech is not going to remodel or come up with B29 bases. Is that the reason? I'd sure like to know that is the reason rather than an a cave in to furballers. Either way lets have a real answer to this B29 question. And no I didn't search for it. :D
-
Very few people have said it should not be in the game. They are saying it should not be in the game RIGHT NOW. We don't need another American bomber especially a late war one. we have mor eimportant aircraft. We need another german bomber, at least 1 russian bomber, Judy, maybe an italian bomber, another british bomber, SB2C as well as a few other before the B29 can be considered.
-
"Yes" to the B-29. And I'll say it 82 times the reason being is I pay the same $ per month as you do and have as much right to say what I want as you do. Nor do I speak for "all the veteran players" who pay the same $ as the noobs do to play this game, and most of whom I'll bet could care less if the 29 was in the game.
The ones who "fly 38k on HQ missions at 0330 in the morning" are the highly ranked score guys who need a minimum of times in a bomber to get a high bomber rank for their overall ranks. And they can do all this already in Lancs and B-17s or 24s. So why would they risk perked B-29s? Go ahead and ask them cause the real bomber sticks are attacking front line targets with 4 cons on their tails already. Perked B-29s would have no more adverse affect on the game then perked 262s do.
You should learn to be more accepting of others and their opinions Moray. Cause as it stands now you just come across as a fool. Just because you dont fly bombers doesnt mean everyone who does should be content with what you deem is "enough".
RICH46!!! He's my hero! :lol You hit the nail so on the head dude it's not even funny. I posted another version in my B29 Question. There are way too many folks out there who really do want the 29. I think it's a shame these whiney so called senior players whine so much. The poor guy is new to AHII and gets treated like he has the plague. Might have even been his first post. Says alot about the A ***** in this game. To bad there are so many.
-
See? Now that makes SENSE. Not just a bunch of rhetoric. Thank you! I'd love to hear more! :salute
Id gladly give up one of my B25 models for the B29 :rofl
-
Let me add my voice to the pro-B-29A group.
Mind you, we need other bombers first, Pe-2, Tu-2, G4M2, S.M.-79-II, He111, Wellington B.Mk III and Ju188 all stand out as higher priority to me.
But the idea that the B-29A should never be added is absurd. It was a very important aircraft that saw heavy service and was produced in the thousands. Of course it will need to be perked, and at arelatively high cost. Of course it will not have a nuke as a load anymore, less in fact, than the Lancaster Mk III has the 22,000lb 'Grand Slam' as an option. To constantly rebuff the B-29A request due to the nuke is ridiculous as they are 100% separate issues.
Some people claim the B-29A would need to be perked outrageously high, say 3,000 per plane or some such, because they say it would be nigh indestructible. This is false. It would be very survivable, for a bomber, but far from indestructable. If used at medium or low altitude it could be easily destroyed by a Bf110 or Mosquito VI. The Typhoon, La-7, Fw190D-9 and Bf109K-4 would all be effective against it at low and medium altitudes. If the B-29A player spends the time to climb to high alt then the Ta152H and P-47N would both be effective. Adding perk planes in, the Tempest and F4U-1C at low alt and the Spitfire Mk XIV at high alt, and the Me262 and Me163 at any alt would also be effective B-29A killers. Remember, the B-29A has a wingloading of 80lbs/sq.ft. and is not at all a B-17 in agility at altitude.
Well Done. I still say bombers, even the 24, are too vulnerable. The pilots in World War II did not have hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours and hours to play online and become as skilled as the pilots here. Many of them were attacking a bomber group for the first and (last) time.
So I think the models should reflect that. Possibly autoguns for single bomber sticks with no gunners available. Make those auto guns as treacherous as base or carrier ack. Now lets see how much so called talent it takes to down a group of bombers.
-
Not just that but here's another important point. The targets the AH B-29s would attack actually rebuild themselves on their own. And do so rather quickly.
A decent perk cost would also encourage more players to develop high altitude bombers skills, and, high altitude fighter intercepts. Im not against an extra bone being thrown to the guys who climb that high to take down 29s. I know eny controls perk points given but maybe somthing can be done for those fighter sticks who successfully intercept them. As in more perk points given to them.
Ive long wanted the game to become more strategic in general, especially concerning strat/industry targets. Eventually bringing in the 29 would go a ways towards doing that. Tho I would rather see the TU-2 come first.
We need another perk bomber for the bomber crowd. One is not enough.
-
My opinion has always been the difficulty and ramifications of the required modeling for the remote firing turrets. Unlike the gunner positions on any other plane, the gunners (except the tail gunner) do not have a gun actually at their position.
Why this matters . . . If I am in the top turret of a B-24, the two guns at my position are firing at the object. All other guns fire in that direction and converge at 600 yards IIRC. In the event the bogie I am shooting at is very close (say 100 feet away), the two guns I am aiming at him from my actual position will hit him. All the other guns are going to shoot around him and past him. Same if he is far away (say, 1000 yards). The shots converge at 600, then disperse all around the enemy . . . but the two guns at my position will still be aimed correctly and can ping him. (The dispersion is a mixed blessing -- it can act as a shotgun making at least a few pings more likely, but I would hazard a guess that very few gunners if any actively try to hit planes with guns other than the two they are truly aiming.)
Take the B-29's remote turrets. The gunners in the waist look through a bubble, and see that bogie 100 feet away. With the current coding, the gunner puts his gunsight on the bogie and fires . . . and because he has no guns actually at his position, none of the bullets actually hit the target. In other words, unless that plane is at convergence the gunner has to aim someplace other than the enemy plane to have any hope of hitting him.
Real life B-29 gunners had a simple computer that would change the convergence of the remote turrets based on the distance the gunner input. In other words, he could set the turrets to converge on that target 100 yards, 500 yards, 1000 yards away, and the turrets would respond accordingly. No such thing (yet) in AH. And since we have the magically floating distance number above any enemy icon, gunners in AH with such a capability would decimate any attacking fighter quite easily.
Therefore, it is my opinion that the coding required to make the B-29's guns anything less than useless would actually be so imbalancing in favor of bombers (all bombers, because why would you NOT give other formations the same capability once an adjustable convergence is coded?), that the liklihood of it ever being introduced is small.
-
Search?
-
Id gladly give up one of my B25 models for the B29 :rofl
Which one of "your" B-25s do you want to sacrifice? Others may not be so inclined. ;) :lol
-
BS.....the B-29 would be perked.
Just like the Temp, 262, 234, Spit 14, F4U1-c and F4U-4. Which I might add do NOT "totally ruin AH2".
If you think we need plane gaps filled in.....fine I agree with you. Lets just not cloud the issue here. People let emotions play into disliking the B-29 and disregard its true merits. The B-29 belongs in the game more than the Niki, Ta 152, F4U-1C, WirbleWind, Osty, and a few other planes if you look at just numbers alone.
It has a rightful spot when the time comes.
Strip
Ok... get the point here. 1 B29 would equal THREE B24's in bombload. A formation of B29's = 60,000 lbs of ord. Who is not going to take the 29?
3 B29's... at 30K at 358 mph. There is no way you're intercepting them without jets. One formation of B29's in this game flown by a good pilot could level 4 bases....In one flight. The rest of the bomber set would become obsolete. Now there's 20 or 30 formations of B29's flying around and destroying every base on the map....
The only way you let this plane in is if wind is enabled, full time, and the laser bombsights go away. Even then, I would find it sad, only seeing B29's every hop I could lift. As it is, there are already too many American planes in the set, and variants of, at the cost of good rides that saw alot more action for other countries.
-
While I want to see the He-111 first. I do not think a b.29 with limited enabled fields for use, single ship no formations, and a high perk cost would be a bad thing.
-
The dropping of atomic bombs from B-29's was a HUGE FACTOR in ending the war in the Pacific and I don't recall reading of any B29 missions in the European theater before VE day 7 May 1945 other than as a method of deception to make the Germans think they were being deployed in theater. 5 June 1944 B-29's flew from bases in India to bomb the rail yards in Bangkok in its first combat mission.
Therefore I would expect to see many other more deserving bombers to be represented in AH prior to the B29. Some specific examples to name but a few are:
German - HE-111, DO-17
British - Beaufighters, Wellington B, Halifax,
Italian - SM79, SM81, BR20,
Soviet - PE2, DB3, and IL4
-
just be truthful
i bet 9 outta 10 posts wishing for B-29 are from people who have 15 posts and know nothing about bombing in aces high
they dont care that it can carry 20,000lb of conventional ords, they just want the n00kerz!
*wishes some1 inserts GIF of nook because pannono is at school and it wont display*
-
*wishes some1 inserts GIF of nook because pannono is at school and it wont display*
stolen from the intardnet:
(http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/1903/14143xv5.gif)
(http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/2018/mb0ca6711900cc09a73f52aig5.gif)
wrngway
-
i meant this one but those are good
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
-
do we realy want 2 see this all over place
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1208836980_bltzman1.jpg)
-
do we realy want 2 see this all over place
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1208836980_bltzman1.jpg)
No, and we won't as long as you don't mix me, beans, and fire. :D
-
all bombers, because why would you NOT give other formations the same capability once an adjustable convergence is coded?
Because the B-29 would be a perk bomber and therefore this would be a feature restricted solely to the B-29 to reflect this performance advantage? Technically, the way bomber guns work in Aces High is ALREADY more or less how you described the function of the B-29's guns. One gunner in control of multiple gun positions simultaneously.
The solution then as I see it would be either:
Allow gunners in all bombers other than the B-29 to ONLY control the guns at their respective position (but include the same position in the drones, IE, all top turrets or all tail mounts, but that's all that would fire).
However, as this would just lead to whines about how vulnerable bombers are if HTC didn't also allow fully crewable bombers, the alternative is:
Leave gunner positions in all other bombers as they are, but give the gunner in the B-29 the capability to adjust his convergence range in-flight (like, a .convergence <yardage> command or something of that nature). This function could be locked out by plane type.
-
do we realy want 2 see this all over place
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1208836980_bltzman1.jpg)
"V1 was just nooked"
"There goes A76"
"A32 turned to glass"
"P45 is gone"
"What idiots, they're just gonna kill themselves with that much radiation when they capture the base"
-
Lol Latrobe that last bit would be interesting, You can't send in troops for say, 46 minutes :devil as the radiation would kill all the idiots who forgot the NBC kit :lol
-
How hard can it be to make the guns auto converge? Heck the cv group ack already uses it! At least that's the excuse i'm useing when i get hit 10k plus altitude and 5 miles or more out. :cry I think we will see the B29 someday but it's going to be a few years yet. I agree there are other earlier and countries bombers and fighters needed first. :aok
-
Very few people have said it should not be in the game. They are saying it should not be in the game RIGHT NOW. We don't need another American bomber especially a late war one. we have mor eimportant aircraft. We need another german bomber, at least 1 russian bomber, Judy, maybe an italian bomber, another british bomber, SB2C as well as a few other before the B29 can be considered.
Not only that, but I do believe that HT has said that planes with the capability of carrying that much ordy wouldn't be added. Lancaster if I remember right is the top of the food chain weight wise when it comes for bombers for AHII.
Although when you say 'fighter pilot snobs', I'm a bomber all the way, love my liberators, I'll up a p38J lightning every now and then for a combat sortie or if I'm needed with the squad as a fighter rather than bomber, but back on subject, although I'm a bomber, I strongly oppose the b29 being added to AHII, it would cause such a plane imbalance that would be quite hard to fix.
-
Not only that, but I do believe that HT has said that planes with the capability of carrying that much ordy wouldn't be added. Lancaster if I remember right is the top of the food chain weight wise when it comes for bombers for AHII.
I never heard that. They have said that no bombs bigger than 4000lbs would be modeled, but TMK the have never said anything about total ords.
-
I don't think HT would even make a "NOOk!!!111!!!" So we wouldn't even see that. Becides, only 2 where ever dropped.
B29 didn't have as much impact as the say 100,000 other bombers in the sky during the war. So in turn, they didn't paly much of a role in WW2 other than the last years. It would be fun to fly, and even more fun to "try" to shoot down, but as everyone else is saying, lets look to other bombers before we go for the big bad 29.
-
I think it would just be fun dropping 3 earthquake bombs on base to level it and 3 in town to level it. Who needs a nuke when you can carry two 22,000 lb bombs externally. It would probably make HQ raids more frequent.
-
Ummmm.....no WW2 bomber ever carried two 22,000 lbs externally.
A specially modified Lancaster carried one in recessed portion of the belly after the bomb bay doors were removed.
Strip
-
No, and we won't as long as you don't mix me, beans, and fire. :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
"V1 was just nooked"
"There goes A76"
"A32 turned to glass"
"P45 is gone"
"What idiots, they're just gonna kill themselves with that much radiation when they capture the base"
can you say rad suit?
-
I think they should allow u to get a B-29 for like 2,000 bomber perks, and an atom bomb for like 1,000 perks, and the atom bomb will destroy everything in like 50 miles :D
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee239/bigbobCH/10-atom-bomb-casing.jpg)
(http://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee239/bigbobCH/b-29.jpg)
-BigBOBCH
-
*sits down, saves seat for Bronk in the front row*
-
that wud b kewl
-
(Orders Crew Chief to put extra tie downs on my P-38 to protect it from the Massive Storm of Protests coming over the horizon as we speak.)
-
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh204/arlogu3/AHIIwishgenie_B29.jpg)
As a consolation prize the AHII Wish Genie appears to have resized you big-arsed B-29 pic:
(http://i257.photobucket.com/albums/hh204/arlogu3/b-29.jpg)
-
taht wud be soooo kewl!!!!!1!!L
-
z0mg i n3v3r h3ard 0f n00kz b4z
-
taht wud be soooo kewl!!!!!1!!L
wut kind f gramer notsy spells out 'b'?!?!??!??????!!!!!!!
-
This seat taken?
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii275/zoozoo13/nookie.gif)
-
I know hes joking but why when people really ask for the nuke they think it will kill everything within 25-50miles of the bomb?
-
ounce agin do u realy want 2 see this all over the place
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1208836980_bltzman1.jpg)
-
ounce agin do u realy want 2 see this all over the place
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/1181_1208836980_bltzman1.jpg)
Just look at the bright side. We'll all get a nice tan from it.
-
Just look at the bright side. We'll all get a nice tan from it.
true true
-
Just look at the bright side. We'll all get a nice tan from it.
and maybe retarded people lol
-
Hasn't this topic been disscused before? i say no to both. unless there is an uber big perk price for them (like a 1,000 for the 29 and 500 for a nuke) but how would you determine how you lose the perks for an atom bomb? all in all, i say no.
-
and maybe retarded people lol
We already have alot of those already.
Hasn't this topic been disscused before? i say no to both. unless there is an uber big perk price for them (like a 1,000 for the 29 and 500 for a nuke) but how would you determine how you lose the perks for an atom bomb? all in all, i say no.
The nuke will never happen. Pyro has said it will NEVER be added.
-
The nuke will never happen. Pyro has said it will NEVER be added.
so then why is it always asked for? because its a nuke?
-
so then why is it always asked for? because its a nuke?
That, and people don't use the search button. :aok
-
haha
-
*sits down, saves seat for Bronk in the front row*
*Sits down next to spikes.*
Want some popcorn?
-
Want some popcorn?
i would, but im sittin down atm. :cry
-
Just look at the bright side. We'll all get a nice tan from it.
Yeah, a nice tan, leukemia, and retarded babies!
-
Yeah, a nice tan, leukemia, and retarded babies!
You don't need a nuke for that. Just go to california
-
You don't need a nuke for that. Just go to california
Good point :rofl
-
You don't need a nuke for that. Just go to california
:rofl :rofl
-
*Sits down next to spikes.*
Want some popcorn?
*gladly takes popcorn from BK*
:D
-
Yeah really..... Forget the friggin nuke.
But the B29, as a perk bomber, a nice large payload..... That wouldn't be a bad thing.
And for all you nuke fans, stop asking for that and start asking for the British EarthQuake bomb. Far better chance of that.
-
And for all you nuke fans, stop asking for that and start asking for the British EarthQuake bomb. Far better chance of that.
No theres not. HTC has explicitly said that there will be no bombs larger than 4,000 lbs.
-
and maybe retarded people lol
Already here, we give them helium-filled mics and assign them numbers. :D
-
Already here, we give them helium-filled mics and assign them numbers. :D
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:noid i did not find that hilarious.....
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl
:noid i did not find that hilarious.....
Maybe it wasn't supposed to be funny?
-
please please please STOP asking for B29 and/or nuke. In fact I need to throw myself down the stairs for bumping this thread. Actually these two wishes need to be on the banned list its not funny anymore :cry :cry :cry
-
please please please STOP asking for B29 and/or nuke. In fact I need to throw myself down the stairs for bumping this thread. Actually these two wishes need to be on the banned list its not funny anymore :cry :cry :cry
they should be baned from discussion.
-
Just look at the bright side.
Doesn't matter what side you look at, when the nook goes of it'll all be bright.
oh ya and "ZOMG!!!111!! LOL YA!!!!111 W3 N33d TEH N0OCK!!!!11!!!!!!!!111! ITZ KOO000LL!!!111!! LOL OMG!!!1!!
-
Your wish is granted. (http://www.picburst.com/uploads/b889bc3420.gif) (http://www.picburst.com)
-
Your wish is granted. (http://www.picburst.com/uploads/b889bc3420.gif) (http://www.picburst.com)
lol :rofl damn fairy grand mothers....
-
please please please STOP asking for B29 and/or nuke. In fact I need to throw myself down the stairs for bumping this thread. Actually these two wishes need to be on the banned list its not funny anymore :cry :cry :cry
From the help pages:
Perk Points
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that. Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
-
No more LWM hanger queens please.
-
You know, every time someone asks for a B-29, it makes God so angry he allows another Ben Stiller movie to be made.
-
you can only request b29 when you reach level 99 GOD mode. Then post it in the right forum. borrow an insult "jagbag" lol
-
You know, every time someone asks for a B-29, it makes God so angry he allows another Ben Stiller movie to be made.
haha !
-
B-29 was made in more numbers than a LOT of planes we have now....
Need other gaps filled but we need to have the best prop bomber of WW2 and it would make a good perk sink!
Strip
-
I sure hope you guys are kidding :)
-
whats funny guppy, he is serious :lol
-
Need other gaps filled but we need to have the best prop bomber of WW2 and it would make a good perk sink!
Strip
You're right, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI would be nice to have.
-
No more LWM hanger queens please.
some 2 weeker took over kazaa's body !!!
-
Now, will this B-29 also include the n00k for an increased perk price? :D
-
B29 is a plane I have always thought would be too cool for school. Has to have an awesome view from the cockpit.
-
B29 would be a great addition, without the nuke. Perk it like the 262 or more, I dont care.
-
You know, every time someone asks for a B-29, it makes God so angry he allows another Ben Stiller movie to be made.
Close, actually it is a Roger Moore movie. :rolleyes:
-
Look even sooner then I thought after the sub thread.. Ha told ya! Another dollar for the New Gixer Jar.
Now one moment while I make a cheap attempt to steal the thread...
Hey AKAK the girls say Hi! Would like to know when your coming to Sydney for a visit.
(http://www.virginmedia.com/microsites/take5/slideshow/september/img_18.jpg)
<S>...-Gixer
-
How about B-32 Dominator instead? It held as much as a B-29 I think, just not t3h l33t B-29 w1th t3h n00k
-
Hey AKAK the girls say Hi! Would like to know when your coming to Sydney for a visit.
I'm coming for a few monthes soon ! Tell them to get ready :)
-
Punt
-
Anyone who posts about a "plane" after eyeballing those hotties is...........gay.
-
Anyone who posts about a "plane" after eyeballing those hotties is...........gay.
:rofl
Jump in guys, Qantas is going to sell return fares to promote the new A380 service LA to Sydney $440 USD Return!
<S>...-Gixer
-
Well er uh. The B-29 should have the same perk as the 262 at the base. And only be used at bases that the 163 can be used. Though I might think about makeing a trip there. :lol
-
I would like a B29 with those girls in it :D
-
I'm pretty sure the b-32 was made as a backup incase the b-29 didnt work
-
Well if you read quite clearly (EVERYTHING THAT IS ABOUT TO BE TOLLED IS JUST A FRIENDLY GUESS, NO NEED TO MURDER.) the B-32 was an alien monkey, who flew with about 3000mph and had missiles, was weak in the groins. Was originally called the FLYING MONKEY, can hold 50,000lb worth of tissues and 200,000lb worth of diapers.
So really, please read your history before you post it. :D
-
How about its not time to add the B29. :noid
-
How about its not time to add the B29. :noid
Im not IN with your idea. :cry
-
You know, every time someone asks for a B-29, it makes God so angry he allows another Ben Stiller movie to be made.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Im all for adding the B29 (no nukes). Put a perk cost on it of 300ish at even ENY level.
Add the the 22,000 lbs Tallboys too.
Thx.
-
:aokyes
-
what about NOT adding the B29 ? Enough american bombers. I don't know why all the noobs want it, as they won't even have the perks for it :D
-
If anything HTC should focus on 1940-43 bombers and fighters.
Give more plane choices to fly, to give the perked rides even more meaning and ubberness.
Also to teach you knuckle heads a little thing called "limitations"
-ZOMG..mah 41 plane is not teh ubbarzors!!eleven!oneoneone1 1 1"
-
B-29, what planes could catch them when they get to their operational altitude? I like the 1940-43 post comment. I would love to see the German bomber B planes, the Ju-288, He-177, and the Me-264. They never were truly "operational", but they would at least give us an axis sorta heavy bomber. Personally my money is on the Ju-288, just because it was so wicked fast.
-
Im not IN with your idea. :cry
thank you for your interesting comment. :D
-
Oh man one more B29 request thread and Hitech might actually listen.
-
add the b29 and FW200 :pray
-
add the b29 and FW200 :pray
FW200 is fine
B29 NEVER!
-
FW200 is fine
B29 NEVER!
:rock
-
Anyone who posts about a "plane" after eyeballing those hotties is...........gay.
Those Sydney girls are just the Australian seconds you have to go to Melbourne for the top shelf stuff. :rofl
-
FW200 is fine
B29 NEVER!
FW200 YES!
B29 YES!!
The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that. Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
-
Sir's, Pilots, Old Timers and Newbies....
Along with bigger bomber hangers, I believe that we need B29's.(dont dismiss me yet please)
It's been 8 years since I started playing, and I believe its time(Finaly) to include this plane' and i'd personaly be completly willing to wait 12 months for this upgrade.
I realise though that the gunner positions would be tough but, with tab, or another command we could set convergence with the guns on this bomber solving one inherent problem with this design....
Believe me I realise the time/pain it would take to bring this bomber to the game, the gunner positions alone would be an enormouse accomplishment, but unlike any other sim I believe that this one has the player base, (full of unused bomber perks) to support the development of this war-winning design.
We neeed this plane, and its an addition that MUST be eventualy be included if this game is to survive..
That said, with the B-29 included I wouldnt be surprised if the entire fleet of fighters in the game wouldnt be given a higher eny,(i.e. the eny of each fighter plane in the game could raise a point or two making a curently expensive fighters a little bit cheaper), because the bomber game has become so much better,
This is that kind of bold addition we need to continue the mark of tradition, and historical game play that makes this such a great game.
forgive the misspells and the repeat of so many requests, but there is a reason we cry for this plane, though it might be devoid of a nuke!!.
A8Popysd for from the B29 with no nukes federation..... :rock
-
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/b29_m.gif) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/bf109_mg.gif)
-
Another vote here :aok
Definately no nukes. Unless you were all alone, you would killshoot yourself anyway :D.
Given it's historic significance and the fact that it is likely the most requested addition to AH, I'm all for it.
-
Another vote here :aok
One main gripe I hear is it's enormous bomb load is too much. Well, that could be fixed by not allowing formations (just a suggestion).
Definately no nukes. Unless you were all alone, you would killshoot yourself anyway :D.
Given it's historic significance and the fact that it is likely the most requested addition to AH, I'm all for it.
A heavey mission of Lancasters could carry more than the B-29. B-29 could only carry 20k bombs, max load on a Lancaster was 22k IIRC. :aok
-
007rusty where did u find that pic of cartoon plane?
-
A heavey mission of Lancasters could carry more than the B-29. B-29 could only carry 20k bombs, max load on a Lancaster was 22k IIRC. :aok
TY. fixed post. Guess the gripers did not do research.
I'd like to see the cartoon skies filled with em.
-
B29
# Guns:
* 8 to 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
* 2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
* B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
# Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs.
Avro Lancaster MkIII
* Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
* Bombs:
o Maximum: 22,000 lb (10,000 kg)
o Typical: 14,000 lb (6,400 kg)
We neeed this plane, and its an addition that MUST be eventualy be included if this game is to survive..
Please elaborate.
-
It is time we get the B-29. Perk it out somewhere in the 500 point range. No NUKE. NO Formation. :salute
-
B29
# Guns:
* 8 to 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
* 2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
* B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
# Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs.
Avro Lancaster MkIII
* Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.70 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
* Bombs:
o Maximum: 22,000 lb (10,000 kg)
o Typical: 14,000 lb (6,400 kg)
fixed :)
-
I wouldn't mind seeing the B-29 in AH2, but well after all other important missing planes are added.
That could be about 8-9 years from now. :rofl
-
here :aok http://www.warbirds.jp/english/index.html
007rusty where did u find that pic of cartoon plane?
-
here :aok http://www.warbirds.jp/english/index.html
Cool thx.
-
anytime (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/salute.gif) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/beers.gif)
-
fixed :)
Not really.
If the typical bombload was 20,000 lbs for the B29, that's what HTC will model (be that 10 2k lb'ers or 20 1k lb'ers I do not know).
Believe it or not they don't just look at the max bomb load and pick at random what the loadouts will be.
-
****FLASH TRAFFIC**********
Actor BEN STILLER HAS BEGUN FILMING YET ANOTHer MOVIE this week.....! :aok
-
It is time we get the B-29. Perk it out somewhere in the 500 point range. No NUKE. NO Formation. :salute
that's outrageous 500 perks for no formation is way to much, maybe 75 per bomber.
-
It is time we get the B-29. Perk it out somewhere in the 500 point range. No NUKE. NO Formation. :salute
Perk it that high and you'll make a hangar queen out of it.
Everyone says they dont care about bomber perks but with free Lancs in the game who would risk losing all those perks for 95% of the bomber runs in the game? The B-29 would only be worthwhile if you have an hour or two for a long, long, and high run. A perk cost of 150 to 200, with formations available, would be sufficient. Everything the 29 could bomb does rebuild itself on its own.
-
Imagine, if you will..the ability to only launch from "home" base's to allow time and "safety" to get upto altitude "and time" then travel long distance to a target. All while avoiding pesky high alt fighters.
Think about it people, someone spending 2-3 hours in a single plane, then getting CTD'ed!
The laughs to be had.
-
i agree entirely a b 29 would make this game the best there is
-
that's outrageous 500 perks for no formation is way to much, maybe 75 per bomber.
No it's not. Probably need to lower the cost of the Me 262 as well.
-
Hello all , this is my first time using aces high forums so I thought id give it a try. I was wondering why Aces High didn't have the b29. I started to ask around in the game and everyone poked fun. I thought since we have planes like the 163 , which were rarely even used , and the plane that ended the war , which was often used , we should have it. When I was reading the forums , I saw a post by Kappa , talking about perked load outs. Well , people in the gamr say that we wont get the b29 because then everyone will ask for the atom bomb. That could be an extra perked option of the b29. B29 could be a High perked bomber and have a perked load for the atom bomb. X 3 drones. Then we would have the incredable plane of the b29 and it wouldnt be cheap to take out. Anyways , the b29 is my wishlist and i hope soon we can get this sweet sweet bomber.
-
Please, oh please. Learn the, "Search (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search)" function. Its for your own health.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1198287393_nookie.gif)
-
Please, oh please. Learn the, "Search (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search)" function. Its for your own health.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1198287393_nookie.gif)
So what if we had the nook or that happend like the picture showed , the bomb was in the war and so was the plane so there for we should have it.
-
Please, oh please. Learn the, "Search (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search)" function. Its for your own health.
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1198287393_nookie.gif)
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl did you make that on paint on the start menu
-
Perk points aside, if we ever got the nuke along with a B-29, what do you think would happen to the game?
That's right, 5 bombs later there is no opposition and the war is won. What's fun about that?
EDIT: The animation is made by Furball. He is t3h n0ok C3lebr1ty. :D
-
WOOHOO a war won in about 3 minutes YAYY!!!!
-
Perk points aside, if we ever got the nuke along with a B-29, what do you think would happen to the game?
That's right, 5 bombs later there is no opposition and the war is won. What's fun about that?
EDIT: The animation is made by Furball. He is t3h n0ok C3lebr1ty. :D
That is absolutely ridiculous. If we got te b29 the war wouldnt get won in 3 minutes. Its 1 nuke , not that big
-
Again, a nuclear bomb is out of the question, and HTC has already stated that by implementing a rule of no bombs over 4,000 pounds.
-
Again, a nuclear bomb is out of the question, and HTC has already stated that by implementing a rule of no bombs over 4,000 pounds.
Well thats dumb , because this game is about world war 2 simulation and we had 22,000 pound lanc bombs and we had the atom bomb.
-
On the contrary. If you think this game will have everything ever used in WWII you are sadly mistaken. Just think about it, if we added every plane and every weapon ever used in WWII, HTC would lose a lot of business from veterans of the game. Considering that now a lot of the original aircraft this game started out with are obsolete and wars are being won in just minutes. There is no joy in this and therefore veteran players will move elsewhere.
HTC is smart and therefore will only add aircraft, water vessels, vehicles, and weapons that will further enhance the need of strategy instead of enhancing the suicidal spirit which thrives amongst most of our Lancaster pilots.
With that in mind, go out there and find something not requested which will contribute to the game's strategical spirits.
-
That is absolutely ridiculous. If we got te b29 the war wouldnt get won in 3 minutes. Its 1 nuke , not that big
he said a perked formation with all of them carring nooks plus more then 1 person would be up at
one time with a b29 w/ nukes
-
On the contrary. If you think this game will have everything ever used in WWII you are sadly mistaken. Just think about it, if we added every plane and every weapon ever used in WWII, HTC would lose a lot of business from veterans of the game. Considering that now a lot of the original aircraft this game started out with are obsolete and wars are being won in just minutes. There is no joy in this and therefore veteran players will move elsewhere.
HTC is smart and therefore will only add aircraft, water vessels, vehicles, and weapons that will further enhance the need of strategy instead of enhancing the suicidal spirit which thrives amongst most of our Lancaster pilots.
With that in mind, go out there and find something not requested which will contribute to the game's strategical spirits.
Aahahahahah wars are being won in minutes , are you smokeing something. Weve had the same map in orange and blue for over 3 weeks now , and I never said every plane , i said the planes that were used most. We have 163s which really wernt even used at all but we dont hae a b29 WHICH FINISHED THE WAS~~~!!!!
-
he said a perked formation with all of them carring nooks plus more then 1 person would be up at
one time with a b29 w/ nukes
The Nukes blast rate would determine everything , I think 1 Nuke should be anle to kill a town ::) or a portion of it.
-
The bomb was used three times. Once to test its abilities, Once to bomb Nagasaki, and once to bomb Hiroshima. You think something used three times should be in this game?
-
he said a perked formation with all of them carring nooks plus more then 1 person would be up at
one time with a b29 w/ nukes
Picture a Joker's NOE raid with formations of Enola Gays and Bock's Cars bombing HQ every night. :rofl
-
And the whines of people complaining that they were killed by their own bombs.
-
:rofl :rofl stop arguing with denholm and use the search function. Mabey you should play the game more then a week before drastically trying to change it.
-
I believe he has been around before. He mentioned in another topic that HTC, "took away my animated water."
That was a while back, obviously he's been here before.
-
You don't have to be carrying an Atomic Bomb to experience the B-29's brilliance. With it's payload and defenses it will always be one of the better bombers to have ever flown. It would be nice to have another 'eavy bomber in the game but the A-Bomb should not be included. Think about it this way, if they added our (USA) secret weapon then they will need to start adding secret weapons from all of the countries. and that would be a large waiste of resources.
B-29 defense and Payload
Guns:
8 to 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
PayLoad:
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
!S!
Ciaphas
-
The bomb was used three times. Once to test its abilities, Once to bomb Nagasaki, and once to bomb Hiroshima. You think something used three times should be in this game?
i never said that thats what he said
-
Picture a Joker's NOE raid with formations of Enola Gays and Bock's Cars bombing HQ every night. :rofl
it wouldent be sucessful at least if they lost their cheat guide without it they couldent figure
out how to even fly a b29.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,53268.0.html
take a look at when this was posted, that's how far the B-29 requests go back
-
Picture a Joker's NOE raid with formations of Enola Gays and Bock's Cars bombing HQ every night. :rofl
We N00k teh HQ wit da raids o' furry!!!!
-
We N00k teh HQ wit da raids o' furry!!!!
and even with a n00k JJ's would still miss
-
me-163 were barely ever used in worldwarII and they are barely ever used in the game. so you shouldn't complain about that :rolleyes:
-
I thought since we have planes like the 163 , which were rarely even used , and the plane that ended the war , which was often used , we should have it.
The 163's were actually quite commonly used for the time they were in the war, and the reason we don't have the b-29 is it would drastically throw off plane balance...
It could soar higher than most planes we have in the plane set, amazing range, brilliant bomb load, etc...
Plus, the b-29 did NOT win the war...
The Japanese emperor later said 'The nuke did not lose us the war, it just helped me make up my mind'
The nukes did no more damage than a standard Napalm bombing run, it just packed into a MUCH smaller area :)
As a bomber pilot myself, I'm glad the b-29 is NOT in the game, the b-24 is uber enough for me :aok
-
A single wouldnt do
(http://i118.photobucket.com/albums/o109/AHmeatwad/DoubleFacePalm.jpg)
-
and even with a n00k JJ's would still miss
We don't need to hit teh twn wit teh n00000k, we just need to be close!
-
You don't have to be carrying an Atomic Bomb to experience the B-29's brilliance. With it's payload and defenses it will always be one of the better bombers to have ever flown. It would be nice to have another 'eavy bomber in the game but the A-Bomb should not be included. Think about it this way, if they added our You don't have to be carrying an Atomic Bomb to experience the B-29's brilliance. With it's payload and defenses it will always be one of the better bombers to have ever flown. It would be nice to have another 'eavy bomber in the game but the A-Bomb should not be included. Think about it this way, if they added our (USA) secret weaponNot any more then they will need to start adding secret weapons from all of the countries. and that would be a large waiste of resources.
B-29 defense and Payload
Guns:
8 to 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
PayLoad:
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
!S!
Ciaphas
then they will need to start adding secret weapons from all of the countries. and that would be a large waiste of resources.
B-29 defense and Payload
Guns:
8 to 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
PayLoad:
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
!S!
Ciaphas
-
I agree that the fluffy bunnies should be added to aces high. The carrot should be a high perk though because a formation of fluffy bunnies dropping carrots on fields would just not be much fun at all.
-
probly if we got it it would crash the server the instant it went off
-
:aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok :aok
-
http://www.zagura.ro/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/god-kills-kitten-troll.jpg
-
Well thats dumb , because this game is about world war 2 simulation and we had 22,000 pound lanc bombs and we had the atom bomb.
You could always find another game to play? Calling HTC's ideologies "dumb" is kind of arrogant and crass, especially for a shades account.
-
So what if we had the nook or that happend like the picture showed , the bomb was in the war and so was the plane so there for we should have it.
It was only used 3 times twit boy, go get another shades account no one cares about the crap your saying.
-
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/b29_m.gif) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/bf109_mg.gif)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/discobanana.gif)
-
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/b29_m.gif) (http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/bf109_mg.gif)
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/discobanana.gif)
Pfft, that B-29 is so unrealistic. My animated pic is much better.
-
(http://i26.photobucket.com/albums/c135/007rusty/violin.gif)
Pfft, that B-29 is so unrealistic. My animated pic is much better.
-
Hello all , this is my first time using aces high forums so I thought id give it a try. I was wondering why Aces High didn't have the b29. I started to ask around in the game and everyone poked fun. I thought since we have planes like the 163 , which were rarely even used , and the plane that ended the war , which was often used , we should have it. When I was reading the forums , I saw a post by Kappa , talking about perked load outs. Well , people in the gamr say that we wont get the b29 because then everyone will ask for the atom bomb. That could be an extra perked option of the b29. B29 could be a High perked bomber and have a perked load for the atom bomb. X 3 drones. Then we would have the incredable plane of the b29 and it wouldnt be cheap to take out. Anyways , the b29 is my wishlist and i hope soon we can get this sweet sweet bomber.
i say if we get a b 29 with any type of nuke or a bomb that there should be a cool down of at least 1 day before u can equip another nuke.
-
Didn't I already comment on this? Oh wait, that was one of the other 3000 threads.... :O
-
Hey, at least he searched. :(
-
Well thats dumb , because this game is about world war 2 simulation and we had 22,000 pound lanc bombs and we had the atom bomb.
Pop quiz. Someone identify the incorrect assertion in the above quote.
-
"that's dumb" ?
-
The game is not about World War 2 simulation, but about HTC making money?
-
(http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg)
-
Well thats dumb , because this game is about world war 2 simulation and we had 22,000 pound lanc bombs and we had the atom bomb.
My assumtion is you belive the game should be a WWII simulator. I do not belive that Aces High should be a WWII simulator,and it shows up in our description of what aces high is on our home page. Aces High primary purpose is an ACM simulator that uses WWII aircraft. At times AH will be used as a WWII simulator but this will be in senario base functions and other events.
Simply put Aces high is a game. If you ask what type of game is it. Its an air combat sim.
-
Nice to see the pwnage of Hitech still showing through after 8 years. Well pointed out murdr :)
Regards FBClaw
-
I do believe Murdr speaks of the payload. No, no, that isn't an assertion, it's a fact. 22k bomb? Well, yes, there was the "Grand Slam" but that bomb has no practical application in the game. Only 41 were dropped in the war. Even wiki would tell you the standard payload is 14k.
Pop quiz. Someone identify the incorrect assertion in the above quote.
So maybe even two wrongs righted?
Grand Slam:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Slam_bomb
-
The bomb was used three times. Once to test its abilities, Once to bomb Nagasaki, and once to bomb Hiroshima. You think something used three times should be in this game?
i agree. the 163, though not used much, struck fear in the bombers/ escorts hearts, same with the 262, when they saw the contrails of the jet engines. no offense, but even though the b29 was used a lot, youd hear the same thing, "WHEN WE GETTING THE NOOK!!!!!". I personally dont think we need a b29, you want to drop mass amounts of ord use the Lancaster. a B24 can flatten the FH's, VH, and BH's all at a field, if you are accurate with your bombs. lancs carry much more than the 24, think of what lancs can do on their own?
-
As much as I'd LOVE to see the B29, and yes my official vote is Yes to the B29, you can do alot with Lancasters.
When I first started with Aces High, that was the only plane, vehicle, what have you, that I would not die in. Why? Because I was, and still am, the dweeb that learned how to take out ords, troops, guns even, from above 20k. If you want mass destruction take up the Lancs with the 500/4000 pound package. Learn how to calibrate. How to hold calibration. Set your graphics all the way up, and learn how to zoom in your bombsight.
If anyone would like help with High Altitude drops, calibration, multi targets in one pass etc, I would be more than happy to help, just ask me if you see me in the MAs We can go to the TA, they have excellent facilities there.
Hint... It's all in the configuration and power settings.
Once you get all of that down pat, you can be extremely devistating with Lancs. If your high enough they dont even know your there.
Oh. Taking out the Radar first helps the bombing go so much better too. :salute
-
...Once you get all of that down pat, you can be extremely devistating with Lancs. If your high enough they dont even know your there.
Oh. Taking out the Radar first helps the bombing go so much better too. :salute
Oh the irony.
-
AH2 could use b-29 with just like 30bombs but no A-bomb beacuse then it would be over in ten seconds. Well :salute to all.
-
IN
-
AH2 could use b-29 with just like 30bombs but no A-bomb beacuse then it would be over it ten seconds.
SEARCH! :furious
As I've said MANY times before... as a buff pilot myself, the b24/lancaster are uber enough as it is, we don't need a b-29 cruisin above the fighters service ceiling droppin laser guided bombs...
Quite simply... 2 words... PLANE BALANCE...
But... I guess I'm IN on this idea ;)
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1198287393_nookie.gif)
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rock
-
NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO :furious :furious :furious :furious :furious :o :o :o :o :o :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :devil :devil :devil :devil :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/917_1198287393_nookie.gif)
Was gonna post it denholm but I'm at families house and I don't have it on my photobucket account T_T... although... I do have this one
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
:lol
-
Come on guys, 4 posts...give him a break!
-
Oh dear (http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/smilies/scared0016.gif) Duck and Cover
-
Come on guys, 4 posts...give him a break!
You're right...
NUMBERS!!... I think he's a SHADE!! :D
-
It was just a idea!!! :furious
-
It was just a idea!!! :furious
*cough* SEARCH...
It's not like it's been brought up about a quarter of an infinite amount of times :aok
Least we got a record amount of time without a b29 thread...
-
Was gonna post it denholm but I'm at families house and I don't have it on my photobucket account T_T... although... I do have this one
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
:lol
Its always a competition to get the furball animation out first. This time I win. :D
-
It was just a idea!!! :furious
Search. Who in gods name gave W09 the link to the BBS?
-
(http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1254/millionaireidiotfailiq1.jpg)
-
Not a guru of the internet. Do you think Skuzzy could send a signal back through the internet with the ability to blow up computers of people who suggest b-29's? It just a thought...little brain storming going on here.
-
The FBI has been tracing those attacks for a few years now. People don't get away with it anymore.
-
The FBI has been tracing those attacks for a few years now. People don't get away with it anymore.
Aww... denholm...
Ruin the fun...
How would the man be able to trace an overload of information that would overheat the computers mainframe setting the plasic on the wires on fire causing the motherboard to start to melt, and cause a spontanious exlosion man!!
:aok
-
Let the flaming begin.
-
Let the flaming begin.
w00w00 the flood gates of flaming have been opened!!
n00b :aok
So... how IN the world has this thread gone on so long?
-
Give us the n00k!! :pray
:rofl
Oh yeah, IN. ;)
-
the b-29 has been brought up toooooo many times even by me :noid but i say vote HE-111 :aok
-
the b-29 has been brought up toooooo many times even by me :noid but i say vote HE-111 :aok
HE-111 B-29 UGLY
-
Here's something you can do to determine if something has been asked for or not...If you think of it, it's probablt already been brought up.
-
WAIT..... Everybody stop!
I think we've been here before, check the map!
:huh
-
(http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/1254/millionaireidiotfailiq1.jpg)
(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2475/clipboard01qz7.jpg)
mine wins :devil
-
Was gonna post it denholm but I'm at families house and I don't have it on my photobucket account T_T... although... I do have this one
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
:lol
Im glad you brought that up.. If HTC gives us a nook with no B29, then do we get a cool tricked out Middle Eastern Sedan with 4 Jihadists to set it off with? The Sedan would work because we can drive over the land with almost anything! ;)
-
WAIT..... Everybody stop!
I think we've been here before, check the map!
:huh
ROTFLOL
Sound like my squad CO...
:lol
-
(http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t247/Nealio6s/Forums/8550c4ec.jpg)
-
Two simple plane words for any one eles who might have the same wish........
no :cry
-Bean
-
Two simple plane words for any one eles who might have the same wish........
no
Two simple words...
No?
Last I checked NO was one word :aok
-
already used once,but still applicable
(http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/4966/faildj3.png)
-
It was just a idea!!! :furious
well you are the 73459th person to have that idea and post about it....its getting old
-
YES IN IN IN. :aok
-
(http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/2475/clipboard01qz7.jpg)
mine wins :devil
Your image actually is - in a sense - a double negative. Think about it. If you fail at failing, you have - in a sense - failed. However, you did not fail. ;)
-
Your image actually is - in a sense - a double negative. Think about it. If you fail at failing, you have - in a sense - failed. However, you did not fail. ;)
Since he's right... like usual...
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/small_566923.gif)
:lol
-
Oh, please! I won't accept it until Lusche calls me, "Junior." :D
Hopefully I won't have to eat escargot.
-
Oh, please! I won't accept it until Lusche calls me, "Junior." :D
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/small_569550.jpg)
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
:aok
-
Trigger, why are you not happy with yourself? Is there anything I can do to convince you that staying in this world is the better choice?
-
Trigger, why are you not happy with yourself? Is there anything I can do to convince you that staying in this world is the better choice?
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/banned.jpg)
Punkbusters acting up on me!!
:cry
I can't believe it... it's so hard to deal with... you have no idea...
-
Don't worry, there's always this (http://www.addictinggames.com/D78AQSAKQLQWI9/1258.swf).
-
Don't worry, there's always this (http://www.addictinggames.com/D78AQSAKQLQWI9/1258.swf).
w00w00 that balls bouncin like... well... someones icon :lol
-
Noob123: "I won right?"
Sky1337: "Wat da...j00 h4x0r! Dis be unpossible!" *cries* (logs off)
-
Gotta hand it to the guy, he spelled, "possible," correctly. :D
-
How about giving the B-29 only tail guns,and giving it only 100 pound bombs limited of course. :salute
-
How about giving the B-29 only tail guns,and giving it only 100 pound bombs limited of course. :salute
100lb? :huh
That's less than your average early war Japanese light bomber. And reducing its armament will turn it into the greatest prank in AH.
-
who needs b-29s and nooks when we can unleash this havoc on bish
(http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr232/hunterneary/chihuahuas/crazychihuahuadrivers.jpg)
chihuahuas driving!!!!!! :D
-
Now all they need are some chicks. And a pimped up ride. :rolleyes: :D
-
The B-29 is a dumb idea think its a "supperfortress" it would own to much with all its guns if u could even get to the altitude its capable at flying.
-
The B-29 is a dumb idea think its a "supperfortress" it would own to much with all its guns if u could even get to the altitude its capable at flying.
That my point only the 163 can get up there in that time.
-
Now all they need are some chicks. And a pimped up ride. :rolleyes: :D
Don't let that Chihuahua get near your pimped up chicks, though. Things could get rather messy:
(http://www.chihuahuarichie.com/News/Images/image014.jpg)
-
I like the B29 too but it has some really bad tendencies and I think it would be a hard bomber to stop which might make it a good thing for AH. Then again...
B29 Docs Deadly Dose at Guam:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis.jpg)
Heading off into the sunrise and a long climbout:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis2.jpg)
A look into the bomb bays:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis3.jpg)
-
I like the B29 too but it has some really bad tendencies and I think it would be a hard bomber to stop which might make it a good thing for AH. Then again...
B29 Docs Deadly Dose at Guam:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis.jpg)
Heading off into the sunrise and a long climbout:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis2.jpg)
A look into the bomb bays:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis3.jpg)
It just to big.
-
It just to big.
yeah its just another B.U.F.F just smaller
-
yeah its just another B.U.F.F just smaller
:noid
-
It does require a two mile runway with a full load. Also like a lot of other planes it has room for more fuel and bombs then it can fly with. When it is full of fuel and crew it can carry something like 4 lbs of bombs so with 24 1000 lbers she can still fly further then she can with the two 22000 lb 'Earthquake' bombs and she wont be as fast or go as high because they are carried externally but one of those bombs could potentially destroy an entire factory or two bombs the HQ (no need for the 'Nook' or formations).
-
It does require a two mile runway with a full load. Also like a lot of other planes it has room for more fuel and bombs then it can fly with. When it is full of fuel and crew it can carry something like 4 lbs of bombs so with 32 1000 lbers she can still fly further then she can with the two 22000 lb 'Earthquake' bombs and she wont be as fast or go as high because they are carried externally but one of those bombs could potentially take out and entire factory or two the HQ (no need for the 'Nook' or formations).
yeap just one but still what about raids......can you say ultimate destruction of everything
-
yeap just one but still what about raids......can you say ultimate destruction of everything
Yes i can.
-
I dont believe HT would allow the Earthquake bombs or the 'Nook' because there just werent very many of them in the war. Standard loadout only if at all.
-
yeah but still think about those big raids everything will be destroyed when the bombs fall from 30+k or -30k
-
yeah but still think about those big raids everything will be destroyed when the bombs fall from 30+k or -30k
Who even FLYS that high? :huh
-
Who even FLYS that high? :huh
someone in a b-29 :noid
-
someone in a b-29 :noid
I meant in AH2.
-
That might be why we dont have the B29 in the game. Besides they wouldnt have to come in formations and even if they did there is nothing that says the B29 would be any safer to fly then what we already have. The 'immunity attack' that I posted about is the same attack the Japanese used against the B29s in order to defeat the radar directed guns and it worked for them! :aok
I fly above 30k now in B24s. :D Well except I stopped doing that.
-
I like the B29 too but it has some really bad tendencies and I think it would be a hard bomber to stop which might make it a good thing for AH. Then again...
B29 Docs Deadly Dose at Guam:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis.jpg)
Heading off into the sunrise and a long climbout:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis2.jpg)
A look into the bomb bays:
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis3.jpg)
:cry some day AH will have graphics...after TOD in about 12 years.
-
This will be the LAST plane that's added. Besides, it's a very slow climber.
-
Press Release, breaking news
Ben Stiller has decided to suspend making anymore movies, scrapping the new " BEN STILLER IS A CARROT IN DERP DE DOO DIPITY BURP DE DO"
"They just keep making B29 threads, I can't keep up" the over strained actor commented, sweating bullets.
" My acting days may be over "
-
This will be the LAST plane that's added. Besides, it's a very slow climber.
I dont think 900 ft/sec is slow for a bomber that carries a standard load of 24 1k bombs with the range to go 3250 miles.
The real worry is that the guns should have twice the effective range of manually aimed guns (actually 500 yards should be max for 17s/24s/26s) which in AH would mean 2000 yds?
-
..."They just keep making B29 threads, I can't keep up" the over strained actor commented, sweating bullets...
This is actually an old thread.
-
Up to 20,000 lb of bombs in two internal weapons bays rated at 10,000 lb each.
Typical load was:
4 × 4,000 lb bombs, or
8 × 2,000 lb bombs, or
12 × 1,000 lb bombs, or
40 × 500 lb bombs, or
50 × 300 lb bombs, or
80 × 100 lb bombs.
Well that's a lot. Especially the 500 and 300 lbers. The 1st three load outs don't look out of line compared to the Lancaster.
-
...80 × 100 lb bombs...
:O
-
does the b29 have an excact date of when its going to be released?
-
IN
Nice bait.
IF that wasn't bait remember that they never said the B29 would be added, and even less gave dates. HTC NEVER give dates.
My hint is 20160 minutes.
-
does the b29 have an excact date of when its going to be released?
In 2 weeks
-
just add it so ppl would stop asking for it!!!
-
Nice first post. Obviously a shade.
-
yeah but its not my first time i been watching and i cant take it, one group say we need this and another say NOOO!!!! i say add it so ppl with shut up.
-
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/azwoodyjh/cat2020gun-704528.jpg)
-
yeah you can go do that buddy i dont care.
-
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/azwoodyjh/cat2020gun-704528.jpg)
Dang, forgot that!
Been too long......
YOU KILLED MY KITTEN!! :cry
-
anyways i say add it so ppl will stop asking for it. oh from the last forum it dosnt require a 2 mile runway on saipan and tinian the runways were a quarter to about half that it does not car 24,000lb only 20,000 so it would cary about 20 1000lb bombs and its a very famous aircratf just dont add the later modle witch had the underwing bomb racks and could cary 28,000lbs
-
If you were here this entire time you would have realized by now how destabilizing such an aircraft would be.
It can fly higher and faster than most of our aircraft, can carry more than our current bombers, and has some amazing defenses. We need to focus on getting some older aircraft into the game first. Then we can start talking about these planes with larger egos.
-
wy worry about older airplanes? you say its to fast and to powerful the bomber never ever flew at 30,000ft they only flew em at about 15,000 to 20,000 ft and i can garuantee you i can shoot down a B-29 with a ME-109
-
Why ever remember or bother to honor anyone that was affected by 9/11?
It's history, and the more historical, the higher the priority. On the other hand, if its going to throw the game out of whack, forget it. And that's exactly what this B-29 is going to do. And another note. After we grant the wishes of the fluffy bunny whiners they'll start griping that they don't have a carrot to go along with it. So, you get rid of one whine to receive 20 others. Great deal, huh?
-
ok how about this then, add it to see what ppl think and if enough ppl like it add it but if they dont take it out and add it later on, plus you have the 262 and thats a way to powerful fighter and you have the 163. thoughs alone are capale of dealing with the b-29 even if you do add it along with anyother threat there is
-
glock has a new account... :rolleyes:
-
Couldn't be. He's not responding to posts with smileys.
-
?? anyways im gona leave you guys to think about it and hell ima gona go worry about shooting ace pilots down.
-
We've already thought about it. Use the search function.
-
really? and let me guess is it no?
-
really? and let me guess is it no?
Are You 6 Years Old? *Sniff* I Smell A Squeaker - AKA GTFO!!!
-
anyways i say add it so ppl will stop asking for it. oh from the last forum it dosnt require a 2 mile runway on saipan and tinian the runways were a quarter to about half that it does not car 24,000lb only 20,000 so it would cary about 20 1000lb bombs and its a very famous aircratf just dont add the later modle witch had the underwing bomb racks and could cary 28,000lbs
Just FYI the runways used were required to be 10000 feet and while thats 560 feet short of two miles thats not enough to quibble about considering that Saipan (Afetna) Tinian (Sunharon) Guam (Asatdas) and Iwo (Kadena) were all 10000 feet with another 10000 feet of CLEARED AND LEVEL LAND at both ends of the runway (or water as the case may be). There are plenty of books on the matter and you might enjoy reading a little bit about the subject.
-
Once again i will say, before the B-29 gets added, the bomber hangers will have to be made larger...
When that happens, you will know that that particular plane is'nt far away... :aok
-
i said i was done talking. no more questions ok bye bye now.
-
Sure, perk the hell out of it but it was a major part of the pacific war. I have tons of bomber perk points but what are you going to spend them on? 234? big deal. I have almost as much range as a 234 by flapping my arms. A B-29 would be a HUGE addition.
-
Hmmmm. B-29... I could swear I've seen this request before.
-
BRING ON THE 29!!!!! zOMFG!!!!! lolz!!!!!!
-
Hmmmm. B-29... I could swear I've seen this request before.
no your mistaken...this is a brand new exciting request. WTG with bringing new and exciting things to the wish list. I just can't beleive no one has thought of this before...I mean WOW this is exciting to get a new fresh look at this subject. I huge :salute and pat on the back Hodag!!! Just WOW...can't get over this...not sure i can sleep tonight.
-
I'm for it. Who cares how many times it's been wished for.
-
Man i just wish I could be cool like stroker. Not everyone has seen this request before. Some of us are relative newcomers to the game, although I don't recall mentioning this as an ORIGINAL AND EXCITING idea. But I would certainly think the more often a request goes up on the board the better chance it gets honored. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you let me know stroker, I REALLY appreciate your sterling input.
-
Go easy now, 7th post. :aok
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search2 :aok
-
Sorry has to be done.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
Man i just wish I could be cool like stroker. Not everyone has seen this request before. Some of us are relative newcomers to the game, although I don't recall mentioning this as an ORIGINAL AND EXCITING idea. But I would certainly think the more often a request goes up on the board the better chance it gets honored. But hey, maybe I'm wrong. Why don't you let me know stroker, I REALLY appreciate your sterling input.
WOW...ShamWOW even!! Every forum has search. USE IT! I wish B-29 threads would get locked...there thats my wish.
-
Now children let's all settle down.
Hodag, no offense, but this has been wished for many times. I agree though the more it is wished for there is possibly a higher chance of getting it, or annoying HTC who knows. I also know that many will simply say "Search", gotta say took me till about a month ago to even know about that existed. You'll get use to the mentality of these people sooner or later, or go crazy like some of us. :uhoh Now calm down.
Stroker, go easy on him we were all new once, even you. You are still new too, duh. :P This is a wishlist forum afterall. :D
:salute
X
-
I say we meet by the money bars at recess!!!
-
Why must it be a crime NOT to run a search. Just because an issue has been discussed doesn't mean it must be dropped.
If B-29 posts annoy you here's a fresh way to look at it...DON'T READ THEM!!!!
As far as this being a dead horse, no offense taken. Obviously I'm not the first, nor the last.
I actually prefer behind the playground AFTER school. I don't need another detention.
-
Sorry has to be done.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
:furious
-
Why must it be a crime NOT to run a search. Just because an issue has been discussed doesn't mean it must be dropped.
If B-29 posts annoy you here's a fresh way to look at it...DON'T READ THEM!!!!
As far as this being a dead horse, no offense taken. Obviously I'm not the first, nor the last.
Funny, I thought there was a post about this last week. Seriously bud, from an outsider coming in, use the search key, it realy save us a lot of ridiculos flames, such as this post is, and is going to now.
<S>
-
:furious
:rofl :rofl
you had your chance :P
-
How many B-29 threads been made so far?
-
:rofl :rofl
you had your chance :P
I was "refusing to post it". The guy is obviously a shades, first clue was the first post. He's wanting to say more, but shows restraint. It is further magnified in his "Stroker" reply.
-
WOOT!!1!1!!!
No0Kz!111!!!
yEz!!1
-
Okay I have given it a lot of thought and after considerable BEER I think its still up to Hitech. But if he does give us the B29 then maybe he will also consider giving us the one and only great killer of the B29...
(drum roll please)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/Mig-15.jpg)
and of course then we could also get the great Mig Killer...
(another drum roll please)
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/F86Profile.jpg)
but OOPS now we are fighting the Korean war...
Nothing says end the second WW better then the B29. :aok
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/PimpThis2.jpg)
-
Gee and here I was thinking the B-29 flew 20,000 sorties during WW-ll and dropped 180,000 tons of bombs on Japan and Japanese forces. Had I known it was a Korean war aircraft I never would have asked for it.
-
a B29 doesn't fit in the bomber hangar, and it can't take off from our runways.
Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)
-
Sorry has to be done.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
Dang! I can't believe I missed this.
-
The B29 flew in only one theater (against Japan) but the rumor is that at the convention a 'fantasy 1946' arena was mentioned. By 1946 both Germany and Japan were surrendered so its anyones guess what direction the 'fantasy' would go in.
-
The B29 flew in only one theater (against Japan) but the rumor is that at the convention a 'fantasy 1946' arena was mentioned. By 1946 both Germany and Japan were surrendered so its anyones guess what direction the 'fantasy' would go in.
Ho 229....
:noid
-
I think a B29 would be good just no nuks
-
a B29 doesn't fit in the bomber hangar, and it can't take off from our runways.
Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)
Solution: designate the b29 to the back fields just like 163. design longer runways and bigger hangers. perk the heck out of it just like 262
-
Solution: designate the b29 to the back fields just like 163. design longer runways and bigger hangers. perk the heck out of it just like 262
And yet it would still be unfair.
-
I don't think so, how many bases would it be at 1 or 2. if you see a dar bar growing back there you should have a clue to keep an eye on that dar bar.
what's unfair?
Now the B-29 is not on my list of planes i want. more Japanese fighters, Pe-2, Tu-2, Betty, He-111 and A26 are on my list of wants.
-
I don't think so, how many bases would it be at 1 or 2. if you see a dar bar growing back there you should have a clue to keep an eye on that dar bar.
what's unfair?
Now the B-29 is not on my list of planes i want. more Japanese fighters, Pe-2, Tu-2, Betty, He-111 and A26 are on my list of wants.
The B-29 is just to damn big and so powerful we don't need a super bomber. We need EW planes we don't need more American planes to be added we need more Axis or Russias planes to be added.
-
Powerful? Ha! A lancaster carries nearly the same ordinance. The B29 has more guns but already we know guns dont save bombers unless its a dead six attack and then its usually a 1:1 loss. It would be 'unfair' if the nuke were added but thats not likely to happen. I dont think you would have to push it back to the rear areas even but I do think everyone over rates this airplane.
-
Powerful? Ha! A lancaster carries nearly the same ordinance. The B29 has more guns but already we know guns dont save bombers unless its a dead six attack and then its usually a 1:1 loss. It would be 'unfair' if the nuke were added but thats not likely to happen. I dont think you would have to push it back to the rear areas even but I do think everyone over rates this airplane.
We don't need the B-29 now we need other planes to be added before.
-
Well its not a democracy and only HTC can say one way or the other. They might give you a vote eventually but you will only get one vote. :D
-
Well its not a democracy and only HTC can say one way or the other. They might give you a vote eventually but you will only get one vote. :D
:O
-
Then again, the B-29 could cruise at altitude almost as fast as some fighters....
-
Dang! I can't believe I missed this.
And this.
(http://www.straightblastgym.com/blog/uploaded_images/cat%20&%20gun-704528.jpg)
-
a B29 doesn't fit in the bomber hangar, and it can't take off from our runways.
Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)
As compared to the other bombers in the game? Or from actual history? Oh noes, dont feel stupid.
The B29 flew in only one theater (against Japan)
Actually so did the Japanese planes in the game, "only fly in one theatre". So did some of the USN planes, for all practical purposes.
Yet this fantasy still surfaces about how the B-29 was a "bit player", unlike the ME-262, 163, AR-234, KI-67, all of which must have leveled entire nations to be included, "heck we only made 4,000 29s during the war". And every other level bomber in WW-ll?? Very, very precise unlike the B-29. :huh
-
Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)
IIRC was because of the jet stream and not the inaccuracies of the plane.
-
a B29 doesn't fit in the bomber hangar, and it can't take off from our runways.
Not to mention the WWII version was really imprecise and had to be used from mid alts to hit anything. (I feel stupid repeating this for the Nth time)
I believe the reason the B-29s were imprecise at high alt was due to something called "The Jet Stream". I'm paraphrasing, but basically the jet stream was high wind "currents" that were previously unknown and knocked the bombs farther off course than usual. Any bomber dropping from high altitude over Japan would be equally imprecise.
Do we really need the B-29? No, but we don't need the 262 either.
Damn. somebody beat me to it. :lol
-
I believe the reason the B-29s were imprecise at high alt was due to something called "The Jet Stream". I'm paraphrasing, but basically the jet stream was high wind "currents" that were previously unknown and knocked the bombs farther off course than usual. Any bomber dropping from high altitude over Japan would be equally imprecise.
Do we really need the B-29? No, but we don't need the 262 either.
Damn. somebody beat me to it. :lol
I think jet streams were just being discovered and figured out during the time of WWII. Before WWII there isn't much on them, after the war they were trying to understand it more. One shining example off the top of my head are the Japaneese Fire Balloons ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_balloon ).
...The balloons were intended to make use of a strong current of winter air that the Japanese had discovered flowing at high altitude and speed over their country, which later became known as the jet stream.
The jet stream blew at altitudes above 9.15 kilometers (30,000 ft) and could carry a large balloon across the Pacific in three days, over a distance of more than 8,000 km (5,000 mi). Such balloons could carry incendiary and high-explosive bombs to the United States and drop them there to kill people, destroy buildings, and start forest fires....
-
thanks for the info
-
We have the Ta-152 which was designed to specifically intercept the "possible" B-29's being brought into the ETO.
-
lol good luck with that :)
-
they better give us n00kz if we aint get no CT
-
When people bring up the "We need the B-29" thread, I wait to see how fast someone posts the N00K.gif.
:lol :lol :cry :cry :rofl :rofl
-
When people bring up the "We need the B-29" thread, I wait to see how fast someone posts the N00K.gif.
:lol :lol :cry :cry :rofl :rofl
Furball cries a little each time too. :D
-
they better give us n00kz if we aint get no CT
alright zoozoo...
Only if our PT boats can carry goons (this is an actual in game glitch pic ;))
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/ahss134.jpg)
But here's the loophole...
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg) :rock
-
alright zoozoo...
Only if our PT boats can carry goons (this is an actual in game glitch pic ;))
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/ahss134.jpg)
But here's the loophole...
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg) :rock
So they swim now. :rofl
-
When people bring up the "We need the B-29" thread, I wait to see how fast someone posts the N00K.gif.
:lol :lol :cry :cry :rofl :rofl
Generally the B-29 threads are hit with the nook gif, thus implying anyone insane enough to want the best bomber of the war, and one widely used, would automatically also demand the nook.
Same thing with the "shoot-a-cat" gif. As in anyone mad enough to want such a widely used heavy bomber is lowlife enough to murder helpless little kittens. Actually the B-29 was used to murder helpless little Japanese. Not kittens.
Other anti-29 weaponry? Implications it wasn't used much in the war. Implications anyone insane enough to use them in AH would automatically climb to 30,000' and be bullet proof.
And if we ever got the B-29 could you imagine the unwashed hordes of hairless teenagers climbing into their ME-163 "Summers Eve" rocket ships zooming skywards by the hundreds to intercept me in my B-29? This in a experimental airplane that killed more of its own pilots then it did enemy bomber crews.
Yet here they come at 600 mph to ram my 250 perk bomber they think I killed kittens to get in the first place. :(
-
The kitten isn't being murdered, it's just despondent and suicidal.
-
I'm all for a Luft'46 arena, but I want no part of the B29. Good sized Me-110 raids are already almost impossible to stop without a very determined group of defenders, but the same number of people flying 29s would be invincible. Then again, we'd also end up getting things like the Meteor, MiG-9, Yak-15, Ta-183, Enzian SAM, P-80, and other things that might negate the advantages of the B-29. However, that is only if the regular players can stand the wait to get to 25k alt. :lol
-
Generally the B-29 threads are hit with the nook gif, thus implying anyone insane enough to want the best bomber of the war, and one widely used, would automatically also demand the nook.
Same thing with the "shoot-a-cat" gif. As in anyone mad enough to want such a widely used heavy bomber is lowlife enough to murder helpless little kittens. Actually the B-29 was used to murder helpless little Japanese. Not kittens.
It was also used to kill helpless little Japanese kittens. Still though, the B-29 would be an interesting bomber to have, just so long as the player had to sign a contract that stated that they would NOT Bomb-n-bail or make low level lanc-esque runs. :t
-
Generally the B-29 threads are hit with the nook gif, thus implying anyone insane enough to want the best bomber of the war, and one widely used, would automatically also demand the nook.
Well, b-29 without nuke has comparable ord. to the lancaster, so, the only other real advantage it'd give is guns, which really isn't much with anyone who knows how to use the ones they're givin. ;)
-
Well, b-29 without nuke has comparable ord. to the lancaster, so, the only other real advantage it'd give is guns, which really isn't much with anyone who knows how to use the ones they're givin. ;)
Ummm....
Well, first of all, the B29 carries 20,000 lbs of ordinance. The Lancaster carries 14,000 lbs. That's a B17's bomb load difference between the two.
Second of all, the only guns that the Lancaster has outside of the tail guns are .30 cals, which are almost useless- which is why Lancasters are meat unless you get behind them.
The fact that the Lancaster has only 30 cals that can fire any direction but back is probably the only thing that keeps it from being perked.
-
Eventually, a B-29 should probably be added as part of the normal progression of adding planes to the game. However, many other things should come first in my opinion.
<S>
Yossarian
-
Ummm....
Well, first of all, the B29 carries 20,000 lbs of ordinance. The Lancaster carries 14,000 lbs. That's a B17's bomb load difference between the two.
Second of all, the only guns that the Lancaster has outside of the tail guns are .30 cals, which are almost useless- which is why Lancasters are meat unless you get behind them.
The fact that the Lancaster has only 30 cals that can fire any direction but back is probably the only thing that keeps it from being perked.
If they add a B29 I will find a way to shoot them down without getting shot in return. If I can do it so can you (and every nine year old online isnt that scarey?).
-
Just don't get in the tail gunner's line of fire. Twin .50cal and a 20mm cannon. :O
-
Why do we need a B29? I can blow up everything that needs blown up with what we have. We don't need B29s, B52s,V2 rockets, A10s, nukes,F4s thur 18s. What we need is people to learn to play the game with what we have. Not some dork flying at 50K dropping one bomb and ruining the fun 50 people are having.
If you want a B29, have your dad buy you a pretty little playstation and you can blow the world up before your bed time...........SQUEEK! :salute
-
Why do we need a B29? I can blow up everything that needs blown up with what we have. We don't need B29s, B52s,V2 rockets, A10s, nukes,F4s thur 18s. What we need is people to learn to play the game with what we have. Not some dork flying at 50K dropping one bomb and ruining the fun 50 people are having.
If you want a B29, have your dad buy you a pretty little playstation and you can blow the world up before your bed time...........SQUEEK! :salute
SQUEEK! what game would that be? Super Smash Polly Pocket Bros.?
-
Ummm....
Well, first of all, the B29 carries 20,000 lbs of ordinance. The Lancaster carries 14,000 lbs. That's a B17's bomb load difference between the two.
Well, if I do recall though, HT has said something similar to The Lancaster will be about the maximum ordinance load that will be put in the game?
Second of all, the only guns that the Lancaster has outside of the tail guns are .30 cals, which are almost useless- which is why Lancasters are meat unless you get behind them.
Well, that's just cause you epic fail ;) at knowing how to use the guns properly... I remember a sortie where I got 2 262's and a 163, both came shooting up from underneath, you have to angle yourself so that you can get either nose or tail gun on them... aim for an engine or the cockpit, and you're all good, I mean, seriously, with the laser bomber gunsights, it's not all that hard.
-
I'm speaking from the attacker's perspective. I haven't flown the Lancaster in at least a year. The Lancaster is meat unless you get behind them (which isn't very hard because they're insanely fast at altitude once the bombs are gone).
I laugh at times about the .30 cal's hitting me hovering above them, though if they were .50 cals they'd probably down me.
-
Why not? I mean think about it. Really. I dont agree with the way a lot of people use parts of the game now. Like CVs for instance. You capture one you dont use it... you hide it right? So why not give us the B29. Okay heres my thinking:
You get the B29 with regular ord for everyone. Everyone defends country assets in all zones for 24 hours (game hours so its a dawn to dawn thing) and that country gets 1 nuke. First come first serve but a 2500 perk cost. You can drop it on a factory or a field or a furball but you only get one (no saving them up). If the factories/cities/HQ gets hit AT ALL in the dawn-to-dawn period then NO NUKE. One last proviso... you MUST have at least 2500 bomber perks (plus perk modifier) to qualify and formations ARE NOT available to a buff with a nuke.
If a field/factory/HQ gets hit by a nuke its GONE for a period of dawn-to-dawn.
Nothing says fight like maybe having a NUKE or trying to stop the other guys from getting one! :D
Results: more people engaging buffs at altitude and more people trying to hit strats. People will cheer on buffs hitting strats and maybe even escort them. I mean who wants (enter name of country of your choice here) to have a nuke? Win/win the way I see it.
If you die on a NUKE run you lose 2500 perks.
Flame on!
-
I could care less about having a nuke. I mean, in the lifetime of countries having nuclear weapons only one country has used them for hostile purposes and that was the United States dropping the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the war without a mass invasion of mainland Japan thus causing more casulties. The B-29 would be a nice bomber to have WITHOUT the nuclear weapons. Just leave it with conventional weapons, and no incendiary bombs either.
-
Sorry once again....has to be done.
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/azwoodyjh/cat2020gun-704528.jpg)
-
Results: more people engaging buffs at altitude and more people trying to hit strats. People will cheer on buffs hitting strats and maybe even escort them. I mean who wants (enter name of country of your choice here) to have a nuke? Win/win the way I see it.
Flame on!
I don't fly up to the flying pillboxes now let alone try to catch a B-29 that is probably flying faster than I am already.
-
Hey now. I didnt say we NEEDED the Nuke. I was just mentioning a way it could be introduced that would work and get more fighting generated. Of course right away the standard 'Im tired of seeing this stuff' mindset kicked in. You could have tried just a little to contribute something to the conversation instead of invoking a 'anti-glock' filibuster. :rolleyes:
-
You know someone would spend those 2500 perks just to drop the nuke on a gv fight between the two other countries. :rolleyes:
-
:lol
I'd sure as hell do that!
-
:lol
I'd sure as hell do that!
And knowing you 1plus, as soon as you got airborne you would prolly auger in.
-
It would only be worthwhile to drop it on TT. And make it so that for the next dawn-to-dawn cycle that no one could use TT due to radiation and fallout.
:noid :aok
-
I laugh at times about the .30 cal's hitting me hovering above them, though if they were .50 cals they'd probably down me.
erm...the tail guns of the AH2 lancaster III are 50 cals actually.
-
I know... if I'm above them, they can't train the .50's on me. Which is why I said they're meat as long as you don't get behind them.
-
The vast majority don't even have the patience to use the current bombers right. No B29.
-
What I was envisioning was a mission where every friendly knows who has the nuke and so dozens of other single 29s setup a formation with escorts to whatever target they want (lets say HQ)and if they succeed there wont be dar from dawn-to-dawn (or whatever time the bomb falls) and if they dont make it then they still had one heck of a time! You might think it would be easy to jump arenas but on those rare occasions it will happen on Titanic Tuesday... I think DWHBG and a lot of other people would jump on that!
TT might get one guy a lot of kills but big missions usually give more people more kills. Just saying...
-
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7578/fail1cn8.gif)
ALSO
(http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/9496/suitabilitycs3.jpg)
-
IronCross I dont mind if you continue to fail at using your brain but try not to get hit with being BANNED for failing to stick to the topic. (rule #2)
Thank you.
-
2 weeks
-
Just remember that the nukes were dropped from close to the B-29's max service altitude. And the delivery planes STILL had to haul-ass and maneuver wildly to escape the blast radius as soon as the bomb was released.
The whines when a 29 driver gets his 2500-perk bomb to target, drops it, and then LOSES those 2500 perks when he waporizes himself with his own blast radius would be priceless. :D
We seriously need to have the B-29 threads condensed and stickied.
-
This is one of the things bomber pilots dont do that they should and the B29 would be no different. If you fly a B24 to 32k as I do quite often (see thndreggs response in the other B29 thread) you have the option of getting the heck out of Dodge City very fast and leaving any climbing cons far behind. Every airplane has a published Vne and you can push AHII bombers right up to the Vne by using the '.speed ###' command. Most times a 109 (for instance) will load 50 fuel thinking he is going to intercept and be home for dinner. WRONG! Leave him in the dust! Same goes for the B29 after dropping the load.
Having said that if they whine now you know what to tell them! NOOBS dont belong in perk rides! :aok
-
As I said tho, in the case of the nukes this was just to avoid getting caught in your own blast radius AT 40,000ft. :D The nuke dweebs would probably think they can NOE a B-29 in to do the job.
As for the running out of dodge in the manner you describe, if the drone leash was tightened that might take care of that silly problem. ;)
-
Read the first post... my idea was no drones for a couple of reasons. 1| no extra eggs (nukes) and 2| dead giveaway theres a nuke on board. Besides the war time nuke missions were solo werent they?
-
I want flying sharks with nukes on their heads!
imagine the fear, the terror.
-
Read the first post... my idea was no drones for a couple of reasons. 1| no extra eggs (nukes) and 2| dead giveaway theres a nuke on board. Besides the war time nuke missions were solo werent they?
If I remember right it was a three formation setup one with the bomb and two camera planes to record the results. Another thing is that IF the B29 is ever put in the game it will not have a nuke. Why not? Because pyro has already said that it would never be put in the game.
-
the war time nuke missions were solo werent they?
One had the NUKE one had cameras and one had scientists doing experiments :noid
1+1+1=3 sounds like a formation...
-
Well Chalenge, here is my reply to your original post, since you didn't like the appropriate pictures that spell out how I really think of your request to add the N00K.
The B-29 has been asked for numerous times, and the general consensus is that it would be to unbalancing. The SEARCH button will help you in that respect, I suggest you try to use it in the future. As to your N00K!!!1!!!1 request, again to unbalancing. Also, only two sorties, out of hundreds of thousands of regular sorties, means it was an insignificant contribution, despite having spectacular results.
B-29 threads in general-----------------------------FAIL
The OMG add teh N00K! it was used u must add it?---EPIC FAIL
-
(http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f234/azwoodyjh/cat2020gun-704528.jpg)
That's my kitteh! :mad:
-
I could care less about having a nuke. I mean, in the lifetime of countries having nuclear weapons only one country has used them for hostile purposes and that was the United States dropping the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in order to end the war without a mass invasion of mainland Japan thus causing more casulties. The B-29 would be a nice bomber to have WITHOUT the nuclear weapons. Just leave it with conventional weapons, and no incendiary bombs either.
I feel the same way. B-29 would be a great add to the game, however I do not feel that there is anything positive for the AH community in the addition of nuclear weapons to the arenas.
-
I feel the same way. B-29 would be a great add to the game, however I do not feel that there is anything positive for the AH community in the addition of nuclear weapons to the arenas.
Even if we did get the nuke won't it just lag every one out of the game?
-
I dont think so glock but the radio buffer after the first drop might just scroll so fast it lags.
I dont think there is anything wrong with the B29. I was just mentioning a way the nuke could be added that would not be too awful and yes I think it would boost fights to some degree if the B29 and nuke came together. If you feel differently thats fine. Even Pyros position could be changed if it involved increasing fun and fights in the arenas.
My concept was an attempt to introduce the nuke in a way that represents a nations entire GNP being used to produce one (undamaged US territory reproduced in an undamaged country). Because we dont have TAC/R or photo recon planes (thanks for relaying that information clone) the drones would not be required.
I do think however that replies like those of our dear Mr Iron_Cross are childish beyond description and rise to the same level of the 'OMG add teh N00K! it was used u must add it!'
IC if you spent anytime at all on these boards you would know I am in and out of these discussions all the time that I usually take position AGAINST the B29 (being someone that actually has flown one in a realisc simulation) and that I usually take an even measured view of any topic (without screaming or acting the fool). Your responding the way you did and your relative low post count tells me more about you then the lack of quality in your posts.
The odds that I would ever be online at precisely the same time that a nuke became available under the guidelines I suggested would exceed something like 150000:1 and the odds of a NOOB being online and haveing the perks to use one would exceed something like 3000000:1. ENY could also eliminate the nook quite effectively. Just saying.
-
I don't think there is anything wrong with the B29. I was just mentioning a way the nuke could be added that would not be too awful and yes I think it would boost fights to some degree if the B29 and nuke came together. If you feel differently that's fine. Even Pyros position could be changed if it involved increasing fun and fights in the arenas.
You are correct in that there is nothing wrong with the B-29, it existed, it was used; it just has no place in an operational level FPS game loosely set in WWII. THERE IS NO WAY THAT USING AN ATOMIC BOMB COULD EVER BE CONSIDERED "not be too awful". Nuking imaginary people is contreversal in its own right; using a nuke that will also kill friendly pilots/GVers, or at least should, in the game is also a can of worms best left unopened. People outside of the AH community that discover that AH has a nuke for casual use might not look too fondly upon us either. I doubt that Pyro could eve be convinced that adding a nuke could EVER increase "fun" in the game.
Adding a n00k will never be constructive to AH.
-
i like your proposed idea chalenge (even though im so far from wanting it) i find it a fair way for a nuke to be introduced, :salute nice thinking!
-
You are correct in that there is nothing wrong with the B-29, it existed, it was used; it just has no place in an operational level FPS game loosely set in WWII. THERE IS NO WAY THAT USING AN ATOMIC BOMB COULD EVER BE CONSIDERED "not be too awful". Nuking imaginary people is contreversal in its own right; using a nuke that will also kill friendly pilots/GVers, or at least should, in the game is also a can of worms best left unopened. People outside of the AH community that discover that AH has a nuke for casual use might not look too fondly upon us either. I doubt that Pyro could eve be convinced that adding a nuke could EVER increase "fun" in the game.
Adding a n00k will never be constructive to AH.
I have dropped a lot of bombs in AHII. They DO NOT kill friendlies. What people outside of AHII say/think/feel doesnt interest me in the least. Just saying...
-
i like your proposed idea chalenge (even though im so far from wanting it) i find it a fair way for a nuke to be introduced, :salute nice thinking!
:salute
I dont want it either because I just like flying my pony with the squad but it is a popular 'want' and if it were introduced I cant see anyone really getting upset about it and if they did so what?
A nuke would change some of the dynamics of AHII. The way things are when HQ is attacked the goons launch even before HQ falls and I have seen so many goons flying that HQ was back up before the attack flight landed (what was left of it). That would not be the case with a nuke. :D
-
Chalenge, You don't know me. Just because I have a low post count, you think you know everything about me. Well my churlish friend, just because I don't see fit to post in every topic I come across does not make me "childish", and as to the lack of quality in my post, I tailor them to the receiver, so that they may get the point more readily.
I have dropped a lot of bombs in AHII. They DO NOT kill friendlies. What people outside of AHII say/think/feel doesnt interest me in the least. Just saying...
That statement is false. Bombs can kill friendlies. They just have to be in the blast radius, which is a highly unlikely event, given the largest blast radius for the 4000lb cookie is somewhere around 150-200 yards.
...if you spent anytime at all on these boards you would know I am in and out of these discussions all the time that I usually take position AGAINST the B29...
This statement then makes you, and this whole thread, a TROLL. I suggest you climb into your pony, start flying with your squaddies again, switch back to shooting down B-29 requests, and leave B-29/n00k wishes to n00bs.
-
Well I choose to ignore your suggestion and I will stick to my original assessment of your posts. They were childish.
Bombs will not hurt you under killshooter and they will not hurt friendlies. If you think they will then you dont play the same AHII that I do.
This thread is not a troll since you dont know about bombs not hurting friendlies we all know you are an expert at TROLLING. Have a nice day.
-
It is simple what you can do with the b-29. Perk it like 262, assign bases where 163 are at, give it the pay load that it should half. I would still like to see b-32 pop up too.
-
I dont know how i feel about the b29 being added, but i do know that ive carpet bombed squadies for fun and i never die and neither do they. Lolz
-
Well I choose to ignore your suggestion and I will stick to my original assessment of your posts. They were childish.
Bombs will not hurt you under killshooter and they will not hurt friendlies. If you think they will then you dont play the same AHII that I do.
This thread is not a troll since you dont know about bombs not hurting friendlies we all know you are an expert at TROLLING. Have a nice day.
Well, argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that only weakens your position. Please enlighten us as to why, someone who admitted in this thread, that they are against the introduction of the B-29, would suddenly switch their view, and on top of that, campaign for the introduction of a bomb that would totally unbalance MA play? Attacking me is not a rebuttal of the facts that the B-29, if introduced, will unbalance MA play, and the introduction of the atom bomb, no matter how many limits placed on it, will further kill the fun play in the MA.
As to my lack of knowledge that bombs don't kill friendlies. I admit that I was under a logical fallacy of my own. I logically thought that bombs kill indiscriminately, whoever was unlucky enough to be hit by one. Friend or foe alike, it didn't matter to the bomb. Also please explain how my lack of knowledge in this subject makes me a troll?
To my knowledge, a troll is someone posting blatantly inflammatory topics on the BBS, and attacking anyone who disagrees, or points out the fallacy of the topic. By that definition then, you sir are the troll. Your own admission that you usually disagree with adding the B-29, means you have seen how posts for adding the B-29 are received, and by default the knowledge on how inflammatory those posts are received. All I have done in this thread is point out the fallacy of this thread, my views and opinions on why this thread (the introduction of the B-29 and the atom bomb) is a failure that will only hurt the fun in the MA. You, on the other hand, have only rebutted by attacked me, telling me I'm childish, and a troll. You have never countered any of my arguments, against the introduction of these two items. Argumentum ad Hominem, does not make your point stronger. If you can convince me that carpet-bombing an airfield from 30k with 20,000Lbs of ordinance, or nuking the sight from orbit would be fun for everyone, I may join you in asking for them. Please enlighten me, otherwise continue with your weak, pathetic, ad hominem attacks, and receive the ire of the community.
-
Ouch that got to hurt. :uhoh
-
If you can convince me that carpet-bombing an airfield from 30k with 20,000Lbs of ordinance, or nuking the sight from orbit would be fun for everyone, I may join you in asking for them.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
"Effin-A!"
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/132127324_3cd8ddae96_o.jpg)
-
Well, argumentum ad hominem, a logical fallacy that only weakens your position....
Ha! Your still in here arguing against me? What part of that 'I dont care about this' didnt you understand? I really hit the nail on the head with that 'childish' quip. :D
-
Ha! Your still in here arguing against me? What part of that 'I dont care about this' didnt you understand? I really hit the nail on the head with that 'childish' quip. :D
(http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/7578/fail1cn8.gif)
OOOH! I'm sorry, that was the wrong answer. Another ad hominum attack has completely defeated your argument for adding the B-29 and atom bomb to Aces High II. Thanks for playing, see you next time on Logical Debates.
Let me put it simply for you. Since your only attacking me, and not the issues I have put forth against the addition of the B-29 and atom bomb, you have totally failed to support your position, and the icy wind of logic has blown down your house of cards. Seriously, your rebuttals are like a five year old saying, "Well, your a poopie head." Who is the one being childish? Rebut the issues, don't stoop to ad hominum attacks.
-
Just remember that the nukes were dropped from close to the B-29's max service altitude. And the delivery planes STILL had to haul-ass and maneuver wildly to escape the blast radius as soon as the bomb was released.
was reading something in a magazine about the drops. Enola Gay was 10 miles from where she dropped her bomb and at that altitude, and 10 miles from drop site she recieved a 6G impact from the explosion. i know nothing about B19's so i dont know how high the service cieling was, but i know it was wayyyyy up there for that time. :salute
-
50,000 feet plus IIRC. There is nothing in the present inventory in AHII that can climb that high. Therefore, Chalenge, has tried to introduce an orbital bombardment platform in to the game, plus any nuke will be used to strike from orbit in this way. Not fun by any stretch of the imagination.
-
50,000 feet plus IIRC. There is nothing in the present inventory in AHII that can climb that high. Therefore, Chalenge, has tried to introduce an orbital bombardment platform in to the game, plus any nuke will be used to strike from orbit in this way. Not fun by any stretch of the imagination.
You dont recall correctly. You probably never knew any facts or details about the B-29. A ridiculous and childish reply by you I might add.
To my knowledge, a troll is someone posting blatantly inflammatory topics on the BBS, and attacking anyone who disagrees, or points out the fallacy of the topic.
No a troll is someone just like you. Someone that steps in and tries to derail a topic of discussion and then continues to insult and berate and even PM images (like you did today).
And then you continue to TROLL by posting misinformation about bombs killing friendlies and B29s that go above 50k. No B29 ever went 50k.
Read the forum rules for once not that it will matter for am done responding to this blatant troll.
-
Didn't the B-29 could go up to 45K i think?
-
Service ceiling ~35,000ft
-
Tell that to the rooks.
-
Service ceiling ~35,000ft
Oh thank you for that info.
-
Service ceiling ~35,000ft
Thank you for that Saxman.
Now back to the topic.
Chalenge, as to the bombs not hurting friendlies. If you read through my posts completely, not just the first sentence of each paragraph like you are apparently doing, I did apologize for my lack of knowledge on that particular subject. I have never carpet-bombed TT like you, so I didn't know that bombs don't kill friendlies, so to continue attacking me for it is just you trying to derail the subject at hand.
The subject at hand is you wanting an almost un-intercept able bomber, with a huge payload, and capable of delivering an atom bomb correct? In this thread I have continued to state my views, that the bomber would unbalance MA play, and that the atom bomb, you also want added, would further unbalance MA play. I have never deviated from this or tried to derail this topic. You refuse to debate the subject, have not countered any of the points I try to bring up, and only attack me.
I have stayed on topic. You have only attacked me, and try mightily to derail the topic by calling me childish, and a troll.
No a troll is someone just like you. Someone that steps in and tries to derail a topic of discussion and then continues to insult and berate...
Your own words. You sir, are the one insulting and berating me, calling me childish and a troll.
Counter these points, which are all on topic, and all I've been trying to get you to discuss:
1. The bomber would be almost unintercept able. With a max true airspeed of ~350MPH only the lucky would be able to catch it.
2. The large payload will unbalance MA play. A single bomber will be able to shut down even a large field all on it's own.
3. The atom bomb, no matter the restrictions placed on it, will ultimately be used inappropriately, to ruin the fun play in the MA.
-
That is my point. We get the He-111 then you get the B-29 look unfair.
-
My point in making this post was to show a way the B-29 could be introduced that would and does make sense.
So far all of the counter-arguments have fallen short and given the appearance of comedic images to help boister weak arguments fallen even further short in argument strength.
The figures on this plane are disputable. A lot of bad information is out there. Many simulation examples disagree strongly on the details of sustainable altitudes. Most accept that the B29 could not reach 25000 feet while loaded with bombs. Boeings published records state a 'Combat Ceiling' of 36400 feet and a 'Service Ceiling' of 23950... therefore:
The following airplanes could easily catch the B-29 at 23950 feet (the highest it could go with 'go-home' fuel and a full bomb load). On the subject of bomb loads the B-29 could carry 21000 pounds which is not earth shattering because even in AHII with bomb patterns as easy as they are it takes a pattern/salvo 2 to drop a hangar (thats ten (10) hangars for the math challenged). Any F4U, the P38s, the P51s, the P47s, the 262, the 163, Ta152, N1K2, 190D9 , Typhoon, Tempest, the 109K4 (at least) and Spit 14 (although why a spit I dont know) and probably more airplanes too could easily catch it at that altitude. The highest a B-29 could go with fuel (no bombs) and full crew and gun belts is 36400 feet.
Once its empty who cares? Follow it until it comes down and then kill it.
This plane is not 'uber' and it can easily be shot down. Dont let the propaganda of the Superfortress fool you. A lot of brave Americans died serving in this plane and it very well deserves a spot in our memories if not the virtual skies. We dont 'have' to have it.
Put this plane in the game unperked and I promise you I will shoot down dozens in the first month alone. Perk it and it will be harder to find but not any harder to kill.
-
Chalenge,
I think using the 163 and 262 as examples of planes that can catch the 29 is a bit redundant.
Certainly it's unlikely a fully loaded Superfortress could reach her maximum ceiling, but one REALLY important thing to remember about the B-29:
As tough as fast bombers like the B-26 can be to fight when their formations can run at max power without risk of losing drones at level flight, the B-29 is going to be even WORSE. She has a top speed in excess of 350mph LEVEL flight at altitude. While the F4Us, P-38s, 51s and 47s, N1K2, Dora, Typhoon, Tempest, K4 and Spit XIV can catch her at altitude, the B-29 is only going to give you one or two passes before you're out of energy and wallowing in her rear arc (with a pair of Ma Deuces and a 20mm stinger in the tail gunner's position). Imagine this if B-29s can utilize formations. With 999000 in the gunner's position!
She's not going to be unbeatable by any stretch of the imagination, but with the way formations are abused in the game: Running max power all the way is going to make her SERIOUSLY overpowered.
Oh, and remember to multiply your bombload by three for formations. That's 63,000lbs a B-29 formation can roll out. Also, remember it takes 3000lbs (not 2000) of ordinance to drop a hangar. However with a full formation salvo 1 should be sufficient (I can do it in B-24s in the mains). That's 21 hangars a capable bomber pilot could drop from a B-29.
-
Give me an Ohka and you can have your damn B-29.
But I'm hitting your BH the second I get a suicide bomb.
-
Incidentally, even if HTC DID restrict the B-29's loadout to only a little more than the Lancaster you're still looking at a bomber close to 100mph faster, twice the rate of climb and FAR more heavily armed with 8-10 .50cal in the powered turrets and the 2 .50cal + 1 20mm cannon in the tail vs 4 .303s in the turrets and 2 .50cal in the tail on the Lancaster
-
Saxman, has the right of it. I occasionally take Boston III's up. They are pretty speedy for a bomber, and at 15k, I usually am in, dumped my load, and out, before anyone has a chance to shoot me down. Sure I've been shot down in the Boston, but it is usually after I've killed the target I was after. After my target is down anything after, that happens to me, is meaningless. Pretty Zen, but accurate for the MA. I've taken out my target, getting shot down after that just means I just get to up another plane faster. The times I've been killed before I've dropped my target, the interceptors have been at least at my altitude. That is what I meant by only the lucky would be able to catch the bomber, before it has unloaded it's ordinance.
The amount of ordinance is another issue I have with the bomber being introduced into the MA. By itself it can drop 7 hangars, but with formations enabled that number would jump to 21 hangars. Only the Lancaster has anywhere near the amount of ordinance at 14k. That is enough for 4 hangars or 14 with formations. We already see a lot of abuse of the Lancaster in the MA. The only thing holding back the Lancaster being really abused is its defense package. The Lancaster has pretty weak defenses, and is pretty slow, this is not the case with the B-29. Everything I see, points to the B-29 being an overly abused monster bomber in the MA if introduced. The only scenarios I foresee playing out in the MA are ones where it is running at maximum altitude carpetbombing the hangars of bases where good furballs are happening, like the Lancaster is presently.
-
Keep in mind that this is EXACTLY the reason the B-29 would need to be perked and perked HEAVILY--AND why she's really the best choice for a bomber that can be added that's WORTH perking. She's too fast, too heavily armed, and has too big of a bomb load to be allowed to run loose in the Mains without restriction.
-
If you are flying a fighter at high altitude and make two passes on a level bomber and you run out of E... you arent flying your fighter right.
358 is what the B29 will do trimmed nose down and running all out. You cant do that when your heavy or level either one. Thats a speed you will see when your rtb only. Normally a B29 is good for 220 in cruise or 290-310 fully loaded and level... almost just like a B24.
-
358 is what the B29 will do trimmed nose down and running all out. You cant do that when your heavy or level either one. Thats a speed you will see when your rtb only. Normally a B29 is good for 220 in cruise or 290-310 fully loaded and level... almost just like a B24.
Well cruise is out the window, since most bomber pilots will fly flat out anyway, and to save perkies they will likely fly as high as possible to avoid interception as well. Then we are back to the the scenario I laid out with the Boston. Chasing a bomber that already has done it's job. So most scenarios are going to be a long tail chase for the interceptor. Most of the time, when I got shot down in the Boston, it was because I didn't have a tail gun to kill my pursuer. That won't be a problem with the B-29, plus you will more likely run out of gas before a B-29 would, even with a quarter tank. You are also assuming that the interceptor is at least reasonably co-alt, something not likely to happen when there is a good furball happening between two bases.
-
Most of the time, when I got shot down in the Boston, it was because I didn't have a tail gun to kill my pursuer. That won't be a problem with the B-29,
You assume some one will saddle up on your 6? Most Noobs will how ever those that know how will have any & all bombers in a formation shot down with out a single hit on the attacking fighter.
-
Chalenge,
B-29s were outrunning Japanese fighters while UNDER full combat loads. This points to an airspeed exceeding a mere 300mph. Keep in mind as well that these B-29s were carrying not only 20,000lbs of bombs but a loaded down with gas. In the arenas it's rare to see the large bombers flying with more than 50% fuel, so the B-29 is going to be flying lighter than it would have historically, anyway.
And it's not all about running OUT of E, either. Setting up an attack run is made more difficult because you'll need to allow yourself more room and greater lead when making a pass to avoid missing the formation and ending up in the tail arc.
-
i say put it to a vote. i mean obama got in office because america didnt want to seem to racist to the world. then again i never voted for the other guy either seeing as im to younge to vote, but voting seems to be the best way to settle disagrement insted of argueing over oh it will unbalance things well look at the ME-262 that motherdiddlying jet is faster then all the other planes in the game, so adding the B-29 wouldnt seem any diferent then adding the wright brothers first attempt at an airplane and adding guns to it and pitting it agains a P-51D or ME-262.
-
The Lancaster has pretty weak defenses, and is pretty slow, this is not the case with the B-29. Everything I see, points to the B-29 being an overly abused monster bomber in the MA if introduced. The only scenarios I foresee playing out in the MA are ones where it is running at maximum altitude carpetbombing the hangars of bases where good furballs are happening, like the Lancaster is presently.
How many guys in this game actually have the patience to up heavy bombers and climb them up to 30,000' where they are basically safe, or comparatively safe? Very few and almost all of those are either bomber squadron guys flying their once weekly formation run or the score guys flying one of their 10 a month bomber runs to keep their ranks up.
95% of guys who upp bombers will never climb a B-29 that high. They dont have the patience for it and "most" have no interest in bombing strats anyways. Nobody is going to do it to hangar bang. Hangar bangers climb to 8,000' and come in 2s or 3s. You can only line up so many hangars in a pass anyways and they are only down for 15 mins to begin with. Nobody is going to risk perks to take B-29s hangar banging at 6,000' of ALT. Why would you when you can carpet bomb with disposable Lancs that cost you nothing?
And nobody is going to upp 29s to down CVs either. First off why dive bomb 29s to kill CVs when you can use Lancs, 24s, 17s, and JUs, which cost you nothing and leave the CV just as dead. And certainly nobody is going to climb to 30,000' to kill a CV because not only would that CV be killed by the time you reached 20,000' but so would, probably, the 3 CVs that spawned after the one you upped 29s to kill in the first place.
So the only time you'd really see 29s is when they are bombing strats. And even then only the very few strat runners, or bomber squadrons, would bother upping them. I doubt even the rank guys would use 29s cause they could use other bombers just as easily and would be risking less. Fly a B-29 under 20k and it will be killable just like any other bomber. If perked at 100 a plane, or 150, even guys with a lot of bomber perks will only take so many hits with them.
This entire fantasy that the "sky would be red with 29s" is just that, "fantasy".
-
Your right, why risk it, ill tell you why! less numbers to take out an airfield why send 20 bombers to do the job of 5 to 10? but i still think it should be put to a vote and i say yes!
-
Chalenge,
B-29s were outrunning Japanese fighters while UNDER full combat loads. This points to an airspeed exceeding a mere 300mph. Keep in mind as well that these B-29s were carrying not only 20,000lbs of bombs but a loaded down with gas. In the arenas it's rare to see the large bombers flying with more than 50% fuel, so the B-29 is going to be flying lighter than it would have historically, anyway.
And it's not all about running OUT of E, either. Setting up an attack run is made more difficult because you'll need to allow yourself more room and greater lead when making a pass to avoid missing the formation and ending up in the tail arc.
Saxman read lyrics post again. He is describing how I take down bombers and I dont care if its doing 350 it will get shot down. I have even posted video on how to do it through many discussions on attacking bombers. Sorry you missed it was good times. :D
-
Maybe a B-29 would be a waste against hangars, but there ARE other targets beside the strats. Her bombload would be ideal for taking down towns.
Also, the B-29's speed would NOT just come into effect at 30,000ft. The B-29 is fast at ANY altitude, and while bombers above 20,000ft are rare in the Mains I would still say 15,000ft is the AVERAGE. I see more bomber formations operating in that altitude range than I do under 8000ft. Bomber pilots are only going to climb as high as they need to in order to avoid interception, and when the majority of fights occur under 8k that naturally pushes the formations higher.
-
Chalenge,
I know how to take down bombers, and the formation speed DOES make a difference.
-
95% of guys who up bombers will never climb a B-29 that high. They don't have the patience for it and "most" have no interest in bombing strats anyways. Nobody is going to do it to hangar bang. Hangar bangers climb to 8,000' and come in 2s or 3s. You can only line up so many hangars in a pass anyways and they are only down for 15 mins to begin with. Nobody is going to risk perks to take B-29s hangar banging at 6,000' of ALT. Why would you when you can carpet bomb with disposable Lancs that cost you nothing?
And nobody is going to upp 29s to down CVs either. First off why dive bomb 29s to kill CVs when you can use Lancs, 24s, 17s, and JUs, which cost you nothing and leave the CV just as dead. And certainly nobody is going to climb to 30,000' to kill a CV because not only would that CV be killed by the time you reached 20,000' but so would, probably, the 3 CVs that spawned after the one you upped 29s to kill in the first place.
So the only time you'd really see 29s is when they are bombing strats. And even then only the very few strat runners, or bomber squadrons, would bother upping them. I doubt even the rank guys would use 29s cause they could use other bombers just as easily and would be risking less. Fly a B-29 under 20k and it will be killable just like any other bomber. If perked at 100 a plane, or 150, even guys with a lot of bomber perks will only take so many hits with them.
So by that rationale then, the B-29 would be a useless addition to AHII, used about as much as the Arado 234 is presently. It would be relegated to hangar queen status simply because there are other bombers as capable, and don't cost any perks to use. If we take that to the extreme, the only people wanting it is so they can look pretty flying it in offline mode so they won't waste precious perkies, or just because it was used in WWII and should be added like the L-4 Grasshopper. Sure it would be seen in use. I occasionally see the Arado being used, usually by n00bs who are going, "Wow I can use all my perkies for this bomber now." or more rarely by people wanting to find the CV that the other side is hiding.
-
Chalenge,
I know how to take down bombers, and the formation speed DOES make a difference.
No it doesnt except in the case of the 234 which at times I have trouble killing all three with a P51. Any other bomber in AHII is easily defeated IF you do it right. From what you have said I dont think you do it right at all.
-
So by that rationale then, the B-29 would be a useless addition to AHII, used about as much as the Arado 234 is presently. It would be relegated to hangar queen status simply because there are other bombers as capable, and don't cost anything to use. If we take that to the extreme, the only people wanting it is so they can look pretty flying it in offline mode so they won't waste precious perkies, or just because it was used in WWII and should be added like the L-4 Grasshopper.
If you limit your thinking to solo bomber pilots perhaps so but there are large groups of pilots that would disagree.
-
If you limit your thinking to solo bomber pilots perhaps so but there are large groups of pilots that would disagree.
So were talking about squad missions, and how they are done presently now? So you want to give a bigger hammer to squadrons for taking even more bases? That is all I can infer by that statement. You're not helping your case by inferring the only people going to deploy it are large, base take, mission hoards. Yes squad missions are fun, for the squad. I have been in on the other side of those missions too, and I usually move somewhere else, because the fun just keeps on leaving, until they run out of steam.
-
How about trying to read what I said before? Its not about bombing bases! You bring a big perk ride to a base capture and the first thing that happens when a high con comes in is he jumps YOU! I suggested the B29 be perked high for a reason. Please dont focus on posts as if they are stand-alone topics.
-
How about trying to read what I said before? Its not about bombing bases!
No, it's not, it's about how it will be used in game.
You bring a big perk ride to a base capture and the first thing that happens when a high con comes in is he jumps YOU!
Yup, that is what is going to happen, IF someone realizes what is going on, and is high enough to intercept. Most of the time you'll have a low furball going on between two bases, the darbar is full in the two sectors where the bases are. Would you notice anything different, until all of a sudden 15k over the furball here come the bombers? Would you have time to climb up to them, and intercept them before they have shut down the fighter hangars? Are you going to sacrifice a good fight, to cap a base at 20k on the off chance bombers might come in and kill the fighter hangars, if so your better than 99% of the people in the game. It is already happening in the game at present with the bombers we already have. Why do you want to add to the grief?
-
No it doesnt except in the case of the 234 which at times I have trouble killing all three with a P51. Any other bomber in AHII is easily defeated IF you do it right. From what you have said I dont think you do it right at all.
All bomber formations I approach from a position of altitude advantage. Generally I try to set myself up on my initial pass by flying a parallel course to get out ahead of them. Ideally I look for an initial position 2-3k directly above the formation, and again I follow their course until I'm out ahead of them. Once in position I roll in for a high pass. My preference is to make a vertical drop straight down on my target and aim for the wing between the inboard engine and fuselage and pull out before I dive under him. One pass I can light a B-24 on fire. I'll also aim for the cockpit. I generally try to keep within the forward-high arc, where the concentration of firepower is weakest, and also giving me clean shots at the target's cockpit and engines.
It's the recovery phase after each pass wherein lies the problem, and where bomber speed makes a difference. I'm not saying fast bombers are IMPOSSIBLE to fight, but the margin for error shrinks SIGNIFICANTLY. It's why Ki-67s are so difficult to deal with (though the topside 20mm helps).
But I guess I'm just not the ninja master of buff-busting that you are, sinsei.
-
But I guess I'm just not the ninja master of buff-busting that you are, sinsei.
Hopefully your still young enough to get some practice in. :D Its 'sensei' by the way there grasshopper.
I aim for the pilots forehead and can kill within 30 rounds fired. Fire is nice but if you leave him burning the noob in the Niki will steal it from you. Snce you just came out of a dive you should be arcing below and forward of the bombers and after gaining 1.5k on them you begin a climb while holding your speed above the bombers top end. If a bomber climbs above 25k I will hold at 25k and trail them in optimum cruise until they come down. They hate that. :D
I_C your argument was brought up by Krusty in an anti-buff/anti-formation whine and was defeated soundly. Anytime there is a furball between bases there WILL BE bombers inbound as well. See it recognize it take advantage of it.
-
my tactic for taking out a bomber is to get behind it at about 4000ft above and behind the bomber then dive on it and most likely clip its wing off in one pass but it normaly takes me 2 to 3 trys to clips its wings off, then i pull up after diving under it and speed off to alt, then go in for another pass.
-
Any sort of attack in the rear arc against a bomber formation is about the worst situation you can put yourself in, even if coming in high. ESPECIALLY if you're attacking Ki-67s, which have a 20mm cannon in that aft-high position.
-
eh i seem to like it and i only got shot down once in this entire game and that was against an ace and he blind sighted me, but i seem to like to sneek up behind the enemy then stab them in the back.
-
Problem is bombers have eyes (and guns) on their back....
:noid :noid
-
Ok seriously this is getting WAY off topic
:furious
it started as a discusion about how to introduce b-29s, now it is a dbate and is coming ot be a flame war
i don't care about what you idiots think about the matter
the b-29 was the most important bomber by the end of the war
the b-29 deserves to be added but not the n00k
of the thousands of sorties the b-29 did, only 2 were nuclear missions
it would kill frame rate, and ruin the fun for n00k just leave it at that
-NEARY
-
Ok seriously this is getting WAY off topic
:furious
it started as a discusion about how to introduce b-29s, now it is a dbate and is coming ot be a flame war
i don't care about what you idiots think about the matter
the b-29 was the most important bomber by the end of the war
the b-29 deserves to be added but not the n00k
of the thousands of sorties the b-29 did, only 2 were nuclear missions
it would kill frame rate, and ruin the fun for n00k just leave it at that
-NEARY
Yes with the nuke it would take the fun out of the game. The B-29 doesn't need to be added now but later on.
-
i was saying put it to a vote but nobody listens to polatics, but i say yes to the B-29 and no to the nuclear bomb.
-
I say yes to the B-29 but there need to be more planes to be added first American got it bombers what about the rest of us?
-
well the HO-229 would be good or the jap version of the ME-262 and ME-163
-
well the HO-229 would be good or the jap version of the ME-262 and ME-163
The jap version of the Me-262 didn't have any guns and had the same top speed as the P-51 i think.
-
nope actually it was kinda faster then the german ME-262 and the jap ME-163 was used for kamakaze.
-
nope actually it was kinda faster then the german ME-262 and the jap ME-163 was used for kamakaze.
Problem never use in combat so why do we need a plan that was never in WW2?
-
The jap version of the Me-262 didn't have any guns and had the same top speed as the P-51 i think.
The Nakajima J9Y Kikka and the Nakajima Ki-201 Karyu were both armed. The interceptor version of the Kikka was faster than the P-51D though the IJN "special attack" (Kamikaze) version had a top speed of 420mph at altitude (6,000m).
nope actually it was kinda faster then the german ME-262 and the jap ME-163 was used for kamakaze.
The J8M Shūsui was intended to defend the Japanese homeland against the B-29 raids and not designed as a "special attack" plane, though I am sure the Japanese pilots would have been encouraged to fly their J8M's into the bombers if all else failed but it was not intended to be used solely as a kamikaze platform.
ack-ack
-
I think the n00k issue has been put to bed ITT. The B-29 will probably be added, although I hope much, much later, after the huge gaping holes in the plane set are filled. It will rightly be perked heavily, and after the initial rush of use (and getting shot down left and right as Chalenge states), it will likely be relegated as a hangar queen. Seen infrequently, as other bombers are as capable, and don't cost any perkies.
The only ones clamoring for the B-29, fall into two camps IMHO: the, "It was the iconic bomber of the Pacific theater" camp, and the "OMG! the amount of perkies I will get for shooting them down in my PEE-fifyone," camp.
Will it get added...Yes. Should it be added next...NO, the gaps in the early war plane set, the VVS, Italian, and Japanese plane sets, should take precedence over another American bomber.
-
I think the n00k issue has been put to bed ITT. The B-29 will probably be added, although I hope much, much later, after the huge gaping holes in the plane set are filled. It will rightly be perked heavily, and after the initial rush of use (and getting shot down left and right as Chalenge states), it will likely be relegated as a hangar queen. Seen infrequently, as other bombers are as capable, and don't cost any perkies.
The only ones clamoring for the B-29, fall into two camps IMHO: the, "It was the iconic bomber of the Pacific theater" camp, and the "OMG! the amount of perkies I will get for shooting them down in my PEE-fifyone," camp.
Will it get added...Yes. Should it be added next...NO, the gaps in the early war plane set, the VVS, Italian, and Japanese plane sets, should take precedence over another American bomber.
thank you for proving my point B-29 later on EW and MW planes are needed now along with some new GV's.
-
I defenitely agree with the B29-n00k being binned, for good
Here's what I mean, only 15 B29's were refitted to handle a nook payload, codenamed "Silverplate" B-29's. They featured a dramatic reduction in armor, removal of all gun turrets except the tail gun, different propellers, and modifications to the bomb bay.
In short terms, adding the n00k would require more [whatever game programmers do] to replicate the two different aircraft, including the addition of a brand-new bomb rather than the "general purpose" bombs we have been using this far.
Additionally, unless HTC thinks of some way of making n00ks not look like overkill on the "small" bases/towns/whatnot, we at least won't get the "silverplate" b-29
Or I say... "It will arrive in 1,209,600,000 Milliseconds"
-
You all crack me up really. Pyro said it isnt going to happen. I described how it COULD BE brought in.
Did someone that I ignore wish for it? :D
-
You all crack me up really. Pyro said it isnt going to happen. I described how it COULD BE brought in.
Did someone that I ignore wish for it? :D
HMMM!!! Your posting in the WISHLIST forum on how a plane could be brought into the game. That sounds to me like your wishing it was added. Teach me your logic, it sounds much more advanced than our Earth logic.
You are also right that Pyro is going to have to work out the remote turrets thing, and it looks to be to complicated to deal with on his end of things at the moment. One has to wonder why did you post this thread if you knew there was not a remote chance that the B-29 would be integrated into AHII for the foreseeable future?
-
One has to wonder why did you post this thread if you knew there was not a remote chance that the B-29 would be integrated into AHII for the foreseeable future?
Because it's written somewhere you can't be a dweeb until you post a B-29 thread.
ack-ack
-
Because it's written somewhere you can't be a dweeb until you post a B-29 thread.
ack-ack
Well that sure explains a lot of things then.
I vote that this thread gets locked, who's with me?
-
HMMM!!! Your posting in the WISHLIST forum on how a plane could be brought into the game. That sounds to me like your wishing it was added. Teach me your logic, it sounds much more advanced than our Earth logic.
You are also right that Pyro is going to have to work out the remote turrets thing, and it looks to be to complicated to deal with on his end of things at the moment. One has to wonder why did you post this thread if you knew there was not a remote chance that the B-29 would be integrated into AHII for the foreseeable future?
It is a wish list & the B29 has a much better chance than say F16's & other assorted nonsense of that type that people ask for.
-
well i say screw EW and MW planes becuase they will just not really be used if someone in the arena has a ME-262 nobody is gonna use the early war planes the mid war planes yes but the early war planes they are underpowered and are slow compared to most of the aircraft that you have now. i mean the P-51 was the best fighter of WW2 german ace pilots were getting shot down by rookie pilots in P-51s and the aces were using ME-109 and FW-190s and they were seen as better then any american and british and russian plan at that time. but its always said its not the airplanes its the pilot inside the airplane that makes a diferance.
-
well i say screw EW and MW planes becuase they will just not really be used if someone in the arena has a ME-262 nobody is gonna use the early war planes the mid war planes yes but the early war planes they are underpowered and are slow compared to most of the aircraft that you have now. i mean the P-51 was the best fighter of WW2 german ace pilots were getting shot down by rookie pilots in P-51s and the aces were using ME-109 and FW-190s and they were seen as better then any american and british and russian plan at that time. but its always said its not the airplanes its the pilot inside the airplane that makes a diferance.
Fine we take out all the LW planes and put in all the EW and MW planes that fair.
-
fmb,
Punctuation is your friend. :huh
-
His posts are a veritable treasure trove of linguistic anomalies.
-
:huh I am stupefied, by the lack of any semblance of proper grammatical form, and punctuation, in that post FMB. I weep for the youth of the world. :cry
-
Well that sure explains a lot of things then.
I vote that this thread gets locked, who's with me?
Ack ack was being sarcastic of your veiled ignorance.
-
well i say screw EW and MW planes becuase they will just not really be used if someone in the arena has a ME-262 nobody is gonna use the early war planes the mid war planes yes but the early war planes they are underpowered and are slow compared to most of the aircraft that you have now. i mean the P-51 was the best fighter of WW2 german ace pilots were getting shot down by rookie pilots in P-51s and the aces were using ME-109 and FW-190s and they were seen as better then any american and british and russian plan at that time. but its always said its not the airplanes its the pilot inside the airplane that makes a diferance.
People like you will always gravitate to the Late War planeset to help compensate for your obvious lack of skill. If you look at the planes are flown, you'll see a surprisingly amount of early and mid war planes in the Top 15.
It is also obvious that you get whatever small amount of knowledge of any planes from the History Channel.
ack-ack
-
Ack ack was being sarcastic of your veiled ignorance.
I'm sorry, here is a clue by four. Because it's written somewhere you can't be a dweeb until you post a B-29 thread.
ack-ack
The barb was meant for you. You started the thread.
The crowd goes wild with shouts of "Ole!" as Iron_Cross, deftly sidesteps, Chalenge's, charge. :D
-
Actually you are wrong! I get my information from people who actualy flew the planes in WW2 and from actuall specs of the aircraft! Then again i wouldnt mind having a few slow EW planes for target practice. And another thing just because im a teen dosnt mean your smarter then me. Plus this is getting way off topic, And i was trying to pitch ideas of what we should do, I say let people vote if the aircraft should be in AH2 or not?
-
I'm not saying a B29 with a nuke should be brought to the game or not. Albeit I think it would be fun to try and stop it. Not only should it have to be a huge amount of perk points to fly, but it should also show up on everyone's map as a huge orange dot as soon as it takes off. And whoever shoots it down gets an automatic 200 perkies if they can land the kill. Therefore a B29 nuke raid is almost a suicide mission, becouse just about everybody that can, will up a 262 to hunt it down, and they will know where it is. It would deffintily make for a huge furball around it, between those trying to defend it and those trying to make a banzaii run on it for the 200 perkies. I think it would be fun, but is it right for the game probably not. Maybe for a one time deal or special event.
:salute
BigRat
-
I say let people vote if the aircraft should be in AH2 or not?
No
-
I'm sorry, here is a clue by four. The barb was meant for you. You started the thread.
The crowd goes wild with shouts of "Ole!" as Iron_Cross, deftly sidesteps, Chalenge's, charge. :D
The point in expressing sarcasm was a quip upon your totally ignorant and poorly thought out question. Get a clue today at school.
-
Ya, keep telling yourself, those grapes are probably sour.
-
It is time aceshigh wants to add the b 29 with nookie. and they cast a vote well guess what i really am looking forward to the day for a b-29 with nookie. this time no perkies. B-29 with nook i want so does a million others yay i want b 29 and we are going to have it i dont care u know u want it so stop getting madi am yodad585 and i aprove dis message
-
oh my god......
another dweeb spamming the forum....
ANYWAY WE CANNOT HAVE A NOOK ON THE B-29. THE B-29 should be added but there were THOUSANDS OF SORTIES FOR THE B-29 BUT ONLY 2 HAD THE NOOK!
now that my CAPS LOCK rage is over i present to you......
(http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr232/hunterneary/smileys/tehbignookie.gif)
and i don't want the nook, i like furballing and gv battles and we don't need some noob (you) in a b-29 with a nook droping it on a good furball or gv war for kills.
-
btw yodad u violated rule #3. this thread gonna get skuzzified. now i am angered that i put effort into my last post knowing this.
-
Squeakers can't scold squeakers.
:furious
-
Ok, whoever wants the B-29 might as well give it up for now. It's not going to come anytime soon. Yeah I would like to have it as well but for HQ raids WITHOUT a nook. Stop waiting your time asking for the B-29. It will come when it comes, just not yet.
-
All for a Sunday-Saturday school week, say I...
-
All for a Sunday-Saturday school week, say I...
IIRC, didn't you say a while back you were 16?
-
oh my god......
another dweeb spamming the forum....
ANYWAY WE CANNOT HAVE A NOOK ON THE B-29. THE B-29 should be added but there were THOUSANDS OF SORTIES FOR THE B-29 BUT ONLY 2 HAD THE NOOK!
now that my CAPS LOCK rage is over i present to you......
(http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr232/hunterneary/smileys/tehbignookie.gif)
and i don't want the nook, i like furballing and gv battles and we don't need some noob (you) in a b-29 with a nook droping it on a good furball or gv war for kills.
sure but it just be a big bomb nothing more not like a real nook. and at the end it said something about nookie saying we need on your cartoon
-
what do they mean skuzzified'
-
what do they mean skuzzified'
skuzzy is gonna come over to your house, rape your wife, kids, and pets, along with you (not really, just joking) and lock this thread...
OR
You'll get a "vacation"
-
Squeakers can't scold squeakers.
:furious
:rofl :aok
-
its like the person who posted this is as mature as a 13 year old, oh wait they are 13. :rofl
-
Squeakers can't scold squeakers.
:furious
uh oh he is lurking around the forum making trolls (http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr232/hunterneary/smileys/lurking.gif)
-NEARY :noid
-
on the other hand...... at least he not as bad as glock.....
-
btw yodad u violated rule #3. this thread gonna get skuzzified. now i am angered that i put effort into my last post knowing this.
see Rule #5
oh dang! i just violated Rule #5 myself by pointing out that Neary violated Rule #5. Double dang! I just broke Rule #5 again by pointing out that I had pointed out my violation of Rule #5; etc, etc, etc.
:rofl
-
skuzzy is gonna come over to your house, rape your wife, kids, and pets, along with you (not really, just joking) and lock this thread...
A little excessive, don't you think?
-
Amen.
-
Squeakers can't scold squeakers.
:furious
Quoted for truth.
-
One word:
IN!
and a pic:
(http://i256.photobucket.com/albums/hh198/mniezelski/FAIL.jpg)
-
B-29'S ARE A VERY END OF WAR SENARIO
-
Lunatic, as you apparently haven't noticed, your caps lock key is on.
-
Squeakers can't scold squeakers.
:furious
:rofl
-
skuzzy is gonna come over to your house, rape your wife, kids, and pets, along with you (not really, just joking) and lock this thread...
OR
You'll get a "vacation"
Geeze man.... :noid
-
IN-freaking-credible.....
-
:rofl
-
:D IN :aok
-
$3R10U5L'/, \/\/|-|'/ (4|\|'7 \/\/3 937 73|-| |\|00|<Z, 17 \/\/0ULD b3 50 51/\/\PL3 9U'/Z!!!!!1111!
But IN all honestly, this post is awesome. :rolleyes:
-
Excuse me whilst I weep softly for the future of humanity.
-
For the 1000th time in a "wish we had the B29 w/ a nuke thread" I will point out: The runways in Aces high are NOT long enuff to get a B29 in the air. So in order to get a B29 HTC has to redo every airfield in the game ....being that one map alone has 250+ airfields I doubt it will every happen.
Helm ...out
-
skuzzy is gonna come over to your house, rape your wife, kids, and pets, along with you (not really, just joking) and lock this thread...
OR
You'll get a "vacation"
Speak for yourself. Your "humor" is in poor taste. :huh
-
For the 1000th time in a "wish we had the B29 w/ a nuke thread" I will point out: The runways in Aces high are NOT long enuff to get a B29 in the air. So in order to get a B29 HTC has to redo every airfield in the game ....being that one map alone has 250+ airfields I doubt it will every happen.
Helm ...out
CV "Train"? :lol
-
JUST A THOUGHT, B-29S SHOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED to up from fields next to HQ. like the me-163. they usually were used for long range missions, and not in front lines.
-
as skribe put it, i guess they could be added but they can only take off from the red-outlines bases.
WITH NEVER, EVER HAVING A N00K
-
I was just wondering why Skuzzy doesn't want to add the B19. I get that it's pressurized, but just make it super perked. The only perked bomber option is the Ar234 and that's next to useless. Several hundred B19s were produced and used, granted mostly in the Pacific Theater, but they were in the war. Skuzzy if I could hear directly from you that'd be awesome. :salute
Lilvader (Assassin's Inc.)
-
Sorry. I meant B-29 Superfortresses. :rolleyes:
-
Search Button.
-
Skuzzy is the network and webtech guy. You want to ask Pyro and HiTech, they determine what gets added.
B-29A would be a huge amount of work compared to almost any other aircraft.
-
I was just wondering why Skuzzy doesn't want to add the B19. I get that it's pressurized, but just make it super perked. The only perked bomber option is the Ar234 and that's next to useless. Several hundred B19s were produced and used, granted mostly in the Pacific Theater, but they were in the war. Skuzzy if I could hear directly from you that'd be awesome. :salute
Lilvader (Assassin's Inc.)
The 234 is FAR from useless. If three guys can take down the town in one pass in the 234, I would safely say it is far, far, from useless.
-
What Karnak said. I have ZERO input as to the direction of the game. I find out about new stuff almost the same day as you do.
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search
-
skuzzy your still a god!
-
Nah. I am more akin to a target drone. A slow moving one at that.
-
The B29 has a mystique about it that would be tough to overcome because urban legend has assigned the aircraft a reputation of performance it never had in real life.
-
Its news to me the 234 is "next to useless". Back when I had a K/D average in the 1-3 average I was careful not to call anything "useless" cause I figured I just didn't know the aircraft good enough. The 234 just has a narrow scope of use. However in that scope it is without peer and almost unkillable. Ive been spending a lot of time in them again and think they are a great perk bomber. We need another perk bomber but they were a great choice for their "fun" factor alone.
Anything that cruises at 455 mph and drops 3,300 lbs of bombs, X 3 = 9,900lb, is not "useless".
-
Its news to me the 234 is "next to useless". Back when I had a K/D average in the 1-3 average I was careful not to call anything "useless" cause I figured I just didn't know the aircraft good enough. The 234 just has a narrow scope of use. However in that scope it is without peer and almost unkillable. Ive been spending a lot of time in them again and think they are a great perk bomber. We need another perk bomber but they were a great choice for their "fun" factor alone.
Anything that cruises at 455 mph and drops 3,300 lbs of bombs, X 3 = 9,900lb, is not "useless".
It's a nice "minute-man" GV killer too.
-
This game will never be complete without the Superfortress. If HT doesn't auger in (or turn into a desert hermit) I would expect the B-29 to make an entrance into the game eventually.
I for one love the airplane and would love to command those remote powered turrets. The 20mm tail cannon installed in the earlier models would be a great tool to shoot!
-
More kittens... :(
-
I for one love the airplane and would love to command those remote powered turrets.
And right there is what is keeping it from the game IMO (based on pure speculation). That has to be a coding nightmare trying to get a command that would allow you to adjust the convergence of the remote turrets on the fly. Without that ability, the remote turrets would be very difficult to use effectively compared to the guns we have in buffs today.
-
If the remote turrets are such a programing nightmare, leave them out for now.
Get the plane into the game with mannnable turrets and add the remote feature down the road in a future update.
Or not.
-
And right there is what is keeping it from the game IMO (based on pure speculation). That has to be a coding nightmare trying to get a command that would allow you to adjust the convergence of the remote turrets on the fly. Without that ability, the remote turrets would be very difficult to use effectively compared to the guns we have in buffs today.
Really... umm drones already do that now do they not?
Edit: I don't see how it would be any diff than say... The top turret firing when all are fired from say the tail gun.
-
Really... umm drones already do that now do they not?
Edit: I don't see how it would be any diff than say... The top turret firing when all are fired from say the tail gun.
I think the problem could be more the graphical part in modeling the remote stations.. just like why we still don't have the Ar234 periscope yet: Clipping errors.
-
I think the problem could be more the graphical part in modeling the remote stations.. just like why we still don't have the Ar234 periscope yet: Clipping errors.
That's what I was lead to believe.
-
my apologies to the kittens (lost one 2 weeks ago grrr) but how in rl did the remote turrets work?
-
More to the point, the way the gun positions in bombers work now basically ALREADY does the same job as the B-29's remote turret stations.
-
Really... umm drones already do that now do they not?
Not really.
The guns and drones all fire in the same direction and converge at a set distance -- 600 yds? Don't recall, let's pretend 600 for purposes of this discussion.
So, a target at 600 vaporizes and is gone. No question.
Let's say the target gets in close, say 100 yards. In today's buffs, where you are sitting at a gun position, if nothing else the gun you are firing should hit the target at that distance. However, MG fire from all the other guns will go over, under, and around the target and converge at 600 yards.
The remote firing position in the B-29 has no gun. There was a simple fire control computer with which the gunner set convergence of the remote turrets. If he wanted to set it for 1000 yards, or 200 yards, or slide it as the target came in, that is what he did. No such mechanism in currently in AH.
So in current AH terms, the gunner looking out the side blister fires his 4 remote turrets at a target flying straight and level 100 yards off his wing, with the pipper directly on the target -- will completely miss as all his fire goes over, under, and around his target. It is even worse than with the 17s or 24s because the 29 is so friggin huge and the turrets are quite far apart compared to these other bombers.
Similarly, if he is firing at a target flying 1000 yards above him, his fire converges at 600, and diverges sufficiently by 1000 that again he will miss. From a B-24, at least your personal top turret twin 50s will shoot where you aim them.
Now, the B-29 had a "standard" tail gunner, and this would work just fine. Trying to hit anything from anywhere but the tail gunner position, however, I see as very problematic given current game mechanics.
-
never mind.....
-
my apologies to the kittens (lost one 2 weeks ago grrr) but how in rl did the remote turrets work?
APG-15 Radar.
-
You'd basically need a .converge command in-flight for the B-29's gun positions.
-
You'd basically need a .converge command in-flight for the B-29's gun positions.
No we wouldn't we already get distance to target AC from Icons ( we just see the edited numbers I'm sure the whole number is in the packet). That number is fed to the remote turrets to converge at. Kinda like apg-15 radar ehh. ;)
Edit : and that is just another reason when/if the 29 is introduced it will be perked heavily. 262 lvls or higher.
-
HTC could auto-converge the guns for you, but then everyone would want that for all bombers, making them all extremely lethal, and the resulting whines would be epic . . . no, I don't think he would go that route.
Auto convergence would actually make more sense in the 24 or 17 -- after all, there are supposedly gunners there actually aiming the guns, right? So, the convergence for remote turrets would have to be player-controlled to introduce the real-life inaccuracy that existed, lest they be more accurate and more lethal than actual gunners aiming the gun from the point of attack.
So, having to set gun convergence from several remote firing turrets on the fly (i.e. not set in the hanger) would have to be the goal, and that, I believe, would take quite a bit of programming. Of course, I am not a programmer, so I could easily be all wet.
-
The auto convergence would be to simulate the radar and only for the remote guns on one plane. Drones and tail would still converge at 600.
As I just added to the edit above. Thats why you pay the perkies. :aok
Edit: as to what people want well ... we know HT is pretty set in his ways. He doesn't appear to be swayed easily.
-
the B29 would make the best perk bomber
and would be used alot in the LW arena and would fit perfectly in that arena of late war monsters
but we have alot of holes in the planeset for many other bombers
such as Russia who has no level bomber
and many other bombers that saw alot of combat are not included
I would prefer that we have a few Russian bombers and Japanese bombers first and then maybe german
-
BRING ON T3H BEE-29/TU-4 B0MB3R!!!!!
-
We could use the Russian Tu-4, which is essentially the B-29 that the Russian's stole, dissected, rebuilt, and mass produced.
-
We could use the Russian Tu-4, which is essentially the B-29 that the Russian's stole, dissected, rebuilt, and mass produced.
But not during WW2. And that's the end of this request ;)
-
The auto convergence would be to simulate the radar and only for the remote guns on one plane. Drones and tail would still converge at 600.
As I just added to the edit above. Thats why you pay the perkies. :aok
Edit: as to what people want well ... we know HT is pretty set in his ways. He doesn't appear to be swayed easily.
Been a long time since I really dug into this, but my recollection was that the radar hardly ever worked and was only for the tail gun. For the turrets, it was the gunner who manually tracked the approaching fighter and adjusted some knobs on his sites to correct for speed, lead, convergence, etc.
Hmm . . . since I am going by memory, which in my case has as many holes as swiss cheese, maybe I should shut up and do some reading this weekend . . .
-
But not during WW2. And that's the end of this request ;)
I figured mine would've been the last one. :D
-
The United States had no qualms about copying the wing design of the 262 in their post-war jets. All countries copy the successful designs of other nations.
-
The United States had no qualms about copying the wing design of the 262 in their post-war jets. All countries copy the successful designs of other nations.
I think the US was experimenting with swept wings before they had a 262 to study with. I know during the war they played with it on a P-63 test mule.
-
[quote author=Yeager link=topic=257905.msg3193899#msg3193899 date=1233880876
I for one love the airplane and would love to command those remote powered turrets. The 20mm tail cannon installed in the earlier models would be a great tool to shoot!
[/quote]
We already have a bomber with a 20mm gun, it's the Ki-67 and it's the top gun that has the 20mm. It works well on P-38s, just ask SoonerMP about that one.
-
20mm's didn't last long on the 29, as they were too prone to failure.
-
Actually guns in general didn't last too long, as the B-29s just flew so high and fast nothing could get to them....
Also, I thought the B-29's tail position was two .50s and a 20mm?
-
What Karnak said. I have ZERO input as to the direction of the game. I find out about new stuff almost the same day as you do.
Go over to HTC HQ and givem a slappin! :D
J/K ;)
-
[quote author=Yeager link=topic=257905.msg3193899#msg3193899 date=1233880876
I for one love the airplane and would love to command those remote powered turrets. The 20mm tail cannon installed in the earlier models would be a great tool to shoot!
We already have a bomber with a 20mm gun, it's the Ki-67 and it's the top gun that has the 20mm. It works well on P-38s, just ask SoonerMP about that one.
And just when I thought my wounds had healed...... That was a very fun scenario though!
-
We already have a bomber with a 20mm gun, it's the Ki-67 and it's the top gun that has the 20mm. It works well on P-38s, just ask SoonerMP about that one.
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/04.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/05.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/06.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/07.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/08.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/09.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/10.png)
(http://vmf251-buccaneers.net/images/Media/FSO/12-07-07/16.png)
Then again, not so well against FM2s. :D
-
All according to who's gunning my friend :)
-
I was just wondering why Skuzzy doesn't want to add the B19. I get that it's pressurized, but just make it super perked. The only perked bomber option is the Ar234 and that's next to useless. Several hundred B19s were produced and used, granted mostly in the Pacific Theater, but they were in the war. Skuzzy if I could hear directly from you that'd be awesome. :salute
Lilvader (Assassin's Inc.)
Always new guys who demand this
-
B29 is coming, albeit YEARS into the future. I'm guessing no sooner than five years. We will likely see the Meteor sooner than the B29, and even then, the Meteor will be perked higher than the 262, as it has better guns (4x late-model hizookas) turns a lot tighter, and will go 380 on the deck. We simply won't see the B-29 any time soon.
-
Off topic, but the Meteor Mk III has the same guns, Hispano Mk II/M2 20mm, as the Spitfire Mks VIII, IX, XIV, and XVI, Seafire Mk II, Hurricane Mk IIc, Typhoon Mk I, Mosquito Mk VI, P-38G, J and L and F4U-1C.
Not the same guns, Hispano Mk V, as on the Tempest Mk V.
-
Haven't heard the B29 brought up in a while so. I wish we could have a B29
:rofl :rofl :rofl :O
:D
-
There goes another kitten.
-
I agree.
B-29
NO NUKE!
No Formation
and perk it at 300 or so.
-
NO TIME SOON, REQUIRES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WORK, INCLUDING CHANGING EVERY SINGLE BOMBER RUNWAY.
-
I seriously wish we had it, all those innocent kittens dying. For the love of the SPCA think of the kittens!
-
**slaps hand to forehead and winces** :confused:
NO
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
LOL welcome to the club. :aok
-
NO TIME SOON, REQUIRES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WORK, INCLUDING CHANGING EVERY SINGLE BOMBER RUNWAY.
why do automatically think it will be available at EVERY runway??? the 163 isnt (just one) DERRR :rolleyes: and why are you yelling? :furious dont like the post say out and keep quiet. :salute
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)
I'm never fast enough. :l
-
100% in favor of the B29 with a reasonable bomb load.
-
There goes another kitten.
:rofl
-
I want the nuke
-
I want the nuke
i want god to stop killing kittens.
-
i want god to stop killing kittens.
and i want people to stop making that dumb joke
-
and i want people to stop making that dumb joke
The killing of innocent kittens is no joke, and God also gets angry when you ask for the A-26.
-
The killing of innocent kittens is no joke, and God also gets angry when you ask for the A-26.
Same thing goes for the He-111. Now, the B-239 requests God likes.
-
They could set up like the 163, you can only use it from red boxed bases
-
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s205/FrankTimmerman/picard-facepalm.jpg)
-
/\
/ \
/ | \
|
|
|
/ \
:rofl
-
They could set up like the 163, you can only use it from red boxed bases
Actually, this isn't a bad idea.
Still don't see the need for a B-29 though.
wrongway
-
I want the nuke
Pick one.
We can give the nuke, but no where near hell will we give you the B-29 to drop it from.
OR
The B-29 with no nuke, bomb capacity lowered, and 150, 200 perkies.
-FYB
-
Pick one.
We can give the nuke, but no where near hell will we give you the B-29 to drop it from.
OR
The B-29 with no nuke, bomb capacity lowered, and 150, 200 perkies.
-FYB
Lowering the bomb capacity is a stupid idea.
It should be added as a standard B-29A Superfortress with a payload of up to 20,000lbs. No nuke option at all. Formations enabled. Perk price of something like 200 per bomber.
It just shouldn't be added any time soon.
-
Lowering the bomb capacity is a stupid idea.
It should be added as a standard B-29A Superfortress with a payload of up to 20,000lbs. No nuke option at all. Formations enabled. Perk price of something like 200 per bomber.
It just shouldn't be added any time soon.
Okay, have the daing 20,000lbs but you're not getting the formation. And i highly agree, its not needed; not even god would have the patience to fly the damn thing 30,000+ alt...
-FYB
-
Don't be ridiculous. Of course it should get the formations.
-
............................. ............______ __
............................. .......,.-‘”...................``~.,
.............................,.-”............................. ......“-.,
.........................,/...............................................”:,
.....................,?........................... ...........................,
.................../.................................................. .........,}
................./.................................................. ....,:`^`..}
.............../.................................................. .,:”........./
..............?.....__...................... ...... .............:`.........../
............./__.(.....“~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_....”~,_........“~,_....................,:`..... ..._/
..........{.._$;_......”=,_.......“-,_.......,.-~-,},.~”;/....}
...........((.....*~_.......”=-._......“;,,./`..../”............../
...,,,___.`~,......“~.,....................`.....} ............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-”
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|............ ..`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
............................. ...`:,,.............. .............`..............__
............................. ........`=-,...................,%`>--==``
............................. ..........._......... .._,-%.......`
............................. ......,
-
That's a good facepalm!
-
I agree.
B-29
NO NUKE!
No Formation
and perk it at 300 or so.
But I wanna NUKE!!!! :O
-
you get the nuke and it only goes off if your at 30,000ft and hitting the HQ. 1 nuke per players life... in game life.... YOUR LIFE. you can do it one time and thats it so plan wisely. and tell your kids about how you bombed HQ one day way back when.
-
Okay, have the daing 20,000lbs but you're not getting the formation. And i highly agree, its not needed; not even god would have the patience to fly the damn thing 30,000+ alt...
-FYB
Man when 79nerdie are up at night we fly round all the DAR and hit the HQ ....AT THE START OF THE MAP. So we have the patience and with this we could save enough perks to do a 29 raid on the HQ
-
Man when 79nerdie are up at night we fly round all the DAR and hit the HQ ....AT THE START OF THE MAP. So we have the patience and with this we could save enough perks to do a 29 raid on the HQ
Yes but you only get to do it one time... not one time in your day or week or year... just one time.... so it doesnt matter how many perks you have... you can only do it one time in YOUR life... You know.. the life you are living sitting in front of your PC reading the MB for Aces High....
Ya that life... not your cartoon life that has shurely died b4 and will die again...
-
Nobody ever believes me when I say that 99% of the work is already done, been done for years. I will stand by this statement until Pyro states otherwise!
NO TIME SOON, REQUIRES MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF WORK.
STOP wishing for the B29, and start wishing for it to be introduced!
******* NON-Capture base's idea has some merit too but on larger map just wouldn't work.
-
Everytime the B29 is modeled on an HTC computer the servers crash. Dont ask again. :devil
-
i agree woth challenge i say wait for HTC to make the game bigger or we can lower the actuall abilities of the B-29 to 15,000 bombload and and decrease the actual range of the aircraft just for the game.
-
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/b29.jpg) :noid
-
Bronk, from which dark and fetid hole of the internet did you drag out that pic? :noid
-
Bronk, from which dark and fetid hole of the internet did you drag out that pic? :noid
Costs you an extra $5 a month. :noid
-
Costs you an extra $5 a month. :noid
m00t already exploded this pic.
Besides the landscape, notice that the air speed indicator and e6b do not match.
-
That pic has been posted several times, Gavagai ;)
-
You Jerk (jk) Why you gotta be a downer. Bronk is just illustrating what I said last week! Thanks Bronk. You're not as bad as Dads says you are........ :t
Besides the landscape, notice that the air speed indicator and e6b do not match.
Nobody ever believes me when I say that 99% of the work is already done, been done for years. I will stand by this statement until Pyro states otherwise!
STOP wishing for the B29, and start wishing for it to be introduced!
-
You Jerk (jk) Why you gotta be a downer. Bronk is just illustrating what I said last week! Thanks Bronk. You're not as bad as Dads says you are........ :t
Yes I am. :furious ;)
-
Imagine all the guys wanting to be remote controllers for the guns only to find out you'll never have to use them as your in space..
-
ur all kitn kilrs
-
Imagine all the guys wanting to be remote controllers for the guns only to find out you'll never have to use them as your in space..
No no, in AH the B-29's will be used as dive-bomber ofcourse. Doubt anyone will take her above 20k. :confused:
-
B-29 is the carrot on a stick and we are the donkeys. We’ll never ever get it, but we will keep playing, paying and posting in the hopes that one day when all the hanger queens have been added we might be able to nuke something. :aok
Kaz, <S>
-
Yep so Sad so Many Kittens have to Be put to Sleep :aok
Ah what the Heck let them :)
-
The closest thing we'll get to the nuke is Nukezone :D
-
Haven't heard the B29 brought up in a while so. I wish we could have a B29
:rofl :rofl :rofl :O
:D
ONLY! If we get t3h n00kz0rz, wi7h f0rm47i0nz, 4nd n0 p3rkies!! w00w00
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
Eh, if only if only...
-
Well you guys keep asking for them so here they are first the B29
(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo28/ebfd11/100_0518-1.jpg)
and the nuke
(http://i358.photobucket.com/albums/oo28/ebfd11/100_0560.jpg)
:noid
-
(http://www.rv-groovin.com/random/funnies/funny8.jpg)
-
i kind of just wish we could have it, :D so we could get on to more important things! :rock
-
i kind of just wish we could have it, :D so we could get on to more important things! :rock
look at m image, you know what that means everytime some1 asks or wants the b29 god kills a kitten, you people muct not like kittens weve alreayd killed at least 1 millon.
-
if I wish for a kitten will god kill a b29
-
GIVE ME BACK MY NOOK!!!!!!
:rofl
-
what you mean i been flying the B29 daily
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4150/b29j.th.jpg) (http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=b29j.jpg)
-
(http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent083.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org) (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-violent075.gif) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
-
my wifes cat died friday. second one this year. I hope you guys are happy with yourselves.
-
The perk system is a way for HTC to introduce some interesting but otherwise unbalancing planes on a limited basis but the benefits go deeper than that. Perk planes (and vehicles) would be things like Me 262s, Ta 152s, Tempests, B-29s, Ar 234s, Tiger IIs, etc. These are interesting rides but would be very unbalancing if they were available on an unlimited basis. So there won't be unlimited availability but they'll be available as bonuses or perks every so often.
:noid
-
what you mean i been flying the B29 daily
(http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/4150/b29j.th.jpg) (http://img13.imageshack.us/my.php?image=b29j.jpg)
Nice setup for takeoff on Runway 21 R. ;)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/deadthread.jpg)
-
shhh i dont think many people caught on to that
-
Nope they havent. The number of views for this thread skyrocket just about every day.
-
What is so funny here is I simply was joking. I get SUCH a kick at the arguments. I promise not to post another B29 wish again. It is so entertaining though! :rofl
-
Nope they havent. The number of views for this thread skyrocket just about every day.
I just check it for the "I want a super bomber with nukes" whine. Also the requests for equipment that didn't show up until Vietnam are amusing and thats why I usually check out some of the wish list threads.
-
(http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/5402/nukeg.gif) (http://img18.imageshack.us/my.php?image=nukeg.gif)
-
I want the B-29 so I can Nuke everthing!.... but seriously this plane had a huge role in WW2 more so than the A-20 or the Ar234, there should be no thought just bring it in.
-
Nope not worth the effort.
Aces High:
Still B-29 Free :aok
-
I want the B-29 so I can Nuke everthing!.... but seriously this plane had a huge role in WW2 more so than the A-20 :huh or the Ar234, there should be no thought just bring it in.
Boy, what are you smoking?
-
Haven't heard the B29 brought up in a while so. I wish we could have a B29
:rofl :rofl :rofl :O
:D
I agree, it be the greatest bomber in AH.
Formation
Nuke (Only the lead bomber drops one) 3 mile radius explosion
290 - 320 perks
-FYB
-
too lazy to find a picture so.....
facepalm.jpg
-
too lazy to find a picture so.....
facepalm.jpg
.gif not .jpg :)
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/687fea91677be9103defb8dc0b97e8b7.gif)
wrongway
-
Hai guise, chek out meh sig... ! Join meh and getz j00s 4 3! <S> :aok
-
too lazy to find a picture so.....
facepalm.jpg
There you go :)
(http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s205/FrankTimmerman/picard-facepalm.jpg)
Although I think I posted this before in this thread
-
I am for it. Like i said before, we would have to perk it like 262, up at field close to HQ, keep the 20 mm guns on them, and massive bomb load.
-
Oh how about a getting the G4M and give it a perk loadout choice of the Yokosuka MXY-7. :devil
-
I agree, it be the greatest bomber in AH.
Formation
Nuke (Only the lead bomber drops one) 3 mile radius explosion
290 - 320 perks
-FYB
And 3000 perks to fly it, another 3000 perks for the Nuke.
-
Lye-el, copy all 3 lines of text mate, you have more then enough room for the text. :aok
-
There are a number of reasons we need the B29, of which is to Nuke Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, but the number one reason we need the B29,.......... Captain D Stevenson needs a bigger plane to fly through a hanger... which reminds me, where can I upload a film showing this remarkable feat? Yes it can be done, a fully loaded B17 flown through a Hanger (A Dead on hit) something that has never ever been done in the history of the US Army Air Corp. (he used a Mouse to fly with) Currently he is working on flying the B24J Through the hanger, (LESS WING ROOM? :O
-
There are a number of reasons we need the B29, of which is to Nuke Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, but the number one reason we need the B29,.......... Captain D Stevenson needs a bigger plane to fly through a hanger... which reminds me, where can I upload a film showing this remarkable feat? Yes it can be done, a fully loaded B17 flown through a Hanger (A Dead on hit) something that has never ever been done in the history of the US Army Air Corp. (he used a Mouse to fly with) Currently he is working on flying the B24J Through the hanger, (LESS WING ROOM? :O
Try the VH. And HOLY HIJACK BATMAN!
-
And 3000 perks to fly it, another 3000 perks for the Nuke.
No, 350 for formation and 280 alone; full bomb load out included.
1200 perks for 3 mile radius blast nuke.
Can only span at bases where 163 can span, so not all airfields have to get enlarged runways.
-FYB
-
No, 350 for formation and 280 alone; full bomb load out included.
1200 perks for 3 mile radius blast nuke.
Can only span at bases where 163 can span, so not all airfields have to get enlarged runways.
-FYB
Nooks were never deployed in squadron strenght during the was and therefore do not meet the requirements as set by HTC for inclusion into the game.
:noid
And furthermore, at your 280 perks for a single bomber, why would there be a sale on formations. No discounts. If you want all three you have to pay the full 840.
:D
wrongway
-
.gif not .jpg :)
(http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/687fea91677be9103defb8dc0b97e8b7.gif)
wrongway
:D
-
So in all seriousness it IS true then that the re-write of the program code would be prohibitive on the B29? Serious question now.
And if that is so, could someone put it in laymans terms, I'm curious.
Finally, as others have posted what about just making the red box airfields the only fields you could lift from. Meaning, you wanted the damn thing... Here it is, now shut up and fly it already! :rofl Making it a time consideration big time. Also perk the crap out of it. and THAT said then also allow it to do mega damage. BUT NO NUKE.
I think this would be a pretty good compromise what about y'all?
-
The only people who know the answer to the first question aren't talking.
As for "personally", I personally think they should put it in, with a "perk" cost of $5 per aircraft, charged to your CC when you start the sortie. Full (conventional) bomb load, and good luck taking off without crashing.
The problem with that is too many AH players use mommy's credit card, and too many of those players will be grounded when mommy gets the $1,500 bill for all those crashed B29s. Us old folks have no sense of adventure.
-
Nooks were never deployed in squadron strenght during the was and therefore do not meet the requirements as set by HTC for inclusion into the game.
:noid
And furthermore, at your 280 perks for a single bomber, why would there be a sale on formations. No discounts. If you want all three you have to pay the full 840.
:D
wrongway
and youwould need to have lots of alt!
-
Well, the B-29 should be added. Why do we have Ar 234 when only 200 or so where develop where the B-29 had what, 3000, 4000 of them developed. Why is it such a threat to some ppl.
Not having the B-29 is like not having a 190 or P-38
-
No, 350 for formation and 280 alone; full bomb load out included.
1200 perks for 3 mile radius blast nuke.
Can only span at bases where 163 can span, so not all airfields have to get enlarged runways.
-FYB
No B-29
-
No B-29
Why not? Its got a perfect place in AH and it should only spawn from bases around HQ where it can gain altitude.
Nuke would be nice, but i'd rather consider that to be around 2500 perks...
-FYB
-
Why not? Its got a perfect place in AH and it should only spawn from bases around HQ where it can gain altitude.
Nuke would be nice, but i'd rather consider that to be around 2500 perks...
-FYB
There are ppl who fear them for some reason. I guess they are afread of loosing their perk points plane if they get shot down by one ofthe B-29.
-
Why not? Its got a perfect place in AH and it should only spawn from bases around HQ where it can gain altitude.
Nuke would be nice, but i'd rather consider that to be around 2500 perks...
-FYB
1) Disrupt game balance.
2) Only if we get the landing gear failures on takeoff/landing and random engine explosions on startup.
3) Only if I get a f-117 Nighthawk to intercept your 1337 b-29z0r...
-
Copy my sig if you want the B-29/Nook!
-
3) Only if I get a f-117 Nighthawk to intercept your 1337 b-29z0r...
I believe the F117 has no gun making intercept moot.
-
it has no offensive guns your right
-
I cannot see any particular gameplay reasons why the B-29 ought not to be added, under certain conditions. As has been suggested, it should be perked, and I really like the idea that it should only take off from the untakable bases surrounding an HQ. Bombload is fine, etc. If someone wants to up a set of B-29s, risking 400-600 perkies, and fly a couple hundred miles to bomb some base, taking a good hour or two for the sortie, then more power to them. There's no really good gameplay reason why they ought not to be able to do so.
But the nuke is out. Sure, would be cool, give it a perk price of 3000 bomber perks so it doesn't get used that often, but it will almost certainly never happen, and is really a different topic altogether. The B-29 was used to drop nukes in WWII two times, but it was used in thousands of sorties to bomb cities and strats and whatnot.
And the God/Kitten joke was funny the first time. That ship has long since sailed. So give it up, please, for all our sakes.
The B-29, without nuke, is a perfectly reasonable request to make for the game, and I cannot see any reasonable gameplay reason it ought not to be there, with suitable perk price and perhaps base restrictions.
-
I cannot see any particular gameplay reasons why the B-29 ought not to be added, under certain conditions. As has been suggested, it should be perked, and I really like the idea that it should only take off from the untakable bases surrounding an HQ. Bombload is fine, etc. If someone wants to up a set of B-29s, risking 400-600 perkies, and fly a couple hundred miles to bomb some base, taking a good hour or two for the sortie, then more power to them. There's no really good gameplay reason why they ought not to be able to do so.
But the nuke is out. Sure, would be cool, give it a perk price of 3000 bomber perks so it doesn't get used that often, but it will almost certainly never happen, and is really a different topic altogether. The B-29 was used to drop nukes in WWII two times, but it was used in thousands of sorties to bomb cities and strats and whatnot.
And the God/Kitten joke was funny the first time. That ship has long since sailed. So give it up, please, for all our sakes.
The B-29, without nuke, is a perfectly reasonable request to make for the game, and I cannot see any reasonable gameplay reason it ought not to be there, with suitable perk price and perhaps base restrictions.
Yea, i think some of the ppl who don't want if, fear it. It dose need to be in the game. Perk it, no nukes, but having it at bases that are close to HQ i daring to say that is not a good ideal. I would suggested to having it closer to the front line, at specially may bases with a long enough runway fro them to take off.
-
Some of the funnest sorties I have flown in the MAs are when someone organizes a mass bombing raid, and you see this huge darbar forming up two sectors behind the front or whatever, and there's simply no question about what that must be - a buff raid.
So, the word gets out, people start upping Ponies and 262s and whatnot and heading toward intercepting it. Then you show up and it's B-17s at like 23k with Pony escorts, and it's this long, running fight across many sectors as they get to some strat, blow it up, turn around, and fight their way back home.
It's fun for the buff raid to have opposition, and it's fun to try to intercept and disrupt the buff raid on the defensive side too.
If someone wanted to stage massive B-29 raids from near their HQ, heading across 150 miles to enemy territory, so that there was plenty of warning, and plenty of time to organize a defense to it, climbing up to 30k or whatever, I can foresee a heck of a lot of fun for everyone.
I really dig these buff raids, whether I'm in the buff, or in the 262 trying to shoot down the buffs. These buff raids are always good for a fun fight.
-
How could a formation of bombers with a total payload of 60,000 pounds possibly disrupt or unbalance anything in the MA's?
:noid
wrongway
-
How could a formation of bombers with a total payload of 60,000 pounds possibly disrupt or unbalance anything in the MA's?
wrongway
You mean, how could a formation of bombers, costing 600 perks to take off, taking off from a zone base, or from the HQ airfields, possibly disrupt or unbalance anything in the MAs?
Just like the 262 doesn't unbalance the game. If it were free it probably would. It's not, and so it doesn't.
-
:huh This is only tens of views away from the amount of views in the Forum Rules thread.
That's pathetic.
-
You mean, how could a formation of bombers, costing 600 perks to take off, taking off from a zone base, or from the HQ airfields, possibly disrupt or unbalance anything in the MAs?
What makes you think that the Überbomber would have formations?
-
What makes you think that the Überbomber would have formations?
Because it did and so forth deserves one.
-FYB
-
What makes you think that the Überbomber would have formations?
What bomber currently in the game doesn't have formations? What makes you think the B-29 would necessarily be any different?
-
The B-29 was only a bomber at the end of the day, I’m sure it’s liable of being raped by faster more manoeuvrable A/C like every other buff in AH2 is.
It should have the formation option like every other heavy bomber in game. HTC would definitely need to look into perking ordinance instead of perking the B-29 out right.
-
Off topic-ish.
Just out of curiosity, I know the B-29 is in IL-2. Do they have the nook? Do people there wish they had a nook?
:noid
wrongway
-
I have an even simpler idea. Why not just have the B29 in the game. Give the formations and its full bomb payload. Subtract the atomic bomb, and quit the whining! :aok
-
B-29 is the carrot on a stick and we are the donkeys. We’ll never ever get it, but we will keep playing, paying and posting in the hopes that one day when all the hanger queens have been added we might be able to nuke something. :aok
Kaz, <S>
agreed
-
Some of the funnest sorties I have flown in the MAs are when someone organizes a mass bombing raid, and you see this huge darbar forming up two sectors behind the front or whatever, and there's simply no question about what that must be - a buff raid.
So, the word gets out, people start upping Ponies and 262s and whatnot and heading toward intercepting it. Then you show up and it's B-17s at like 23k with Pony escorts, and it's this long, running fight across many sectors as they get to some strat, blow it up, turn around, and fight their way back home.
It's fun for the buff raid to have opposition, and it's fun to try to intercept and disrupt the buff raid on the defensive side too.
If someone wanted to stage massive B-29 raids from near their HQ, heading across 150 miles to enemy territory, so that there was plenty of warning, and plenty of time to organize a defense to it, climbing up to 30k or whatever, I can foresee a heck of a lot of fun for everyone.
I really dig these buff raids, whether I'm in the buff, or in the 262 trying to shoot down the buffs. These buff raids are always good for a fun fight.
What I like doing is getting my B17s up so high they...
1. Cannot really be seen too well unless you've climbed for a week or so. 35k and up.
2. Cannot be chased down readily by very many fighters due to climb performance at those alts. I really enjoyed watching this 262 just simply go back and forth underneath me because of this. He eventually went home. A 190 simply ran out of gas. Great fun.
3. Are so high that few keep coming after me unless of course it is Bud Gray who I get a kick out of shooting down. LOL! Meant with all the respect in the world Bud!
:salute :D
-
What is the current length of the runways in Aces High?
Based on the Given:
OAT 38deg C
Sea Level
115,000 lbs Avg GTOW
Concrete Dry Runway
No Wind
25 Deg Flaps
47.5 Map
50' Obstacle chart used here.
Take Off distance for the B29 is 4,620 feet.
So depending on the runway lengths this might poke a hole in the whole airfield Re Do argument.
Also I highly doubt the modeling of the aircraft was done with 38 Deg C in mind. If ISA was used to calculate performance models then the TO Distance for the B29 would be less. More like 4200'. Keep in mind the GTOW here was mid range, (115,000 lbs).
Obviously if you are going to use GTOW of 190,000 lbs @ ISA +0 you'd be in trouble getting off the ground here in Aces. You'd be talking a TO Distance of 12,000 feet.
What would be FUN IMO for many Aces Pilots would be the considerations you would have to consider with a long range heavy bomb load out! It would be very PRONOUNCED with the B29 and could be very educational for many new pilots, and veteran pilots who would be new to bombers.
That said it would be another request that ammo load outs (If the B29 was to be heavily perked) could be adjustable as well and movable too! Maybe you would prefer to have more ammo in the rear guns than all of it up front? Or if not movable then give us more ammo in the rear, belly, and top guns if possible.
Anyway :salute I think after reading all the posts we ought to have the B29. I think it would be very interesting. I'm also a no nook guy too!
-
I have an even simpler idea. Why not just have the B29 in the game. Give the formations and its full bomb payload. Subtract the atomic bomb, and quit the whining! :aok
They would get used as bigger, faster Lancasters unless perked VERY heavy. At altitude a fighter isn't going to catch one. With the magic bomb sight that the current bombers have and the lazer guns...Über indeed.
-
Keep in mind that a big limiting factor in how the B-29 would be used is if it were base-restricted, similar to how the ME-163 is base-restricted. Nobody can deny that the ME-163 is an holy terror to any bombers that approach the HQ. It's godlike, and really nothing can touch it. But it's not generally available everywhere, so that's fine.
If the B-29 had to take off from either a zone base (a little closer to the front) or even the HQ bases, then missions with the B-29 would take a lot of time. That in itself would be a limiting factor to how much it's used, because most pilots in this game don't have the patience for a long bombing mission. And many of those who have the patience, don't have the interest.
So if a guy wants to take off from a zone base 4 sectors away from his target, fly up with 25k or whatever, drop a metric crapload of bombs on a strat target, then spend another 30 or 40 minutes flying back, then let him. Who's it hurting?
And, limited this way, the B-29 couldn't be used like a Lancstuka for bombing tanks, unless of course it's the zone base under attack, and the Lancstuka driver has some perkies to spare.
Seriously, the B-29 was used in WWII enough to meet the criteria, there are valid use cases for it, and, properly limited, it doesn't have to unbalance the game or anything. And it gives the guys who love to fly bombers around one more arrow in their quiver. And yes, there are people who pay their $15 a month to fly bombers around. It doesn't really matter whether any given individual who posts in this thread likes doing that or not - there are customers who pay every bit as much to play this game as anyone else, who do.
Bring on the B-29, skip the nuke. Let the organized, high-altitude B-29 missions begin. :rock
-
Here's what I think about the b-29:
(Note: I tried my best to list the pro's and con's of each idea. Don't take it as me being uncapable of making up my mind. ;) )
1.) B-29 should be available at large airfields only. Being only available at the uncapturable bases near the HQ's seems a little extreme and would isolate the b-29 from the front lines. Being available at every airfield also seems a little too convenient since the b-29 is such a large, heavy bomber it would take more runway and a substantial amount of airfield to take off (i.e., small and medium airfield are just too small to handle a bird the size of the b-29).
2.) the B-29 had a "Central Fire Control System" (CFCS) which employed the use of a four General Electric analog computers. The CFCS would compute the the B-29's airspeed, the target's speed, target lead, gravity, temperature, barrel wear, and humidity; thus giving the defensive .50 cals of the superfortress twice the range of the manual guns in its predecessor, the b-17. In AH, the guns could be calibrated similar to the way the bombsight is calibrated, but with the target changing velocity at an inconsistent rate I can't imagine how this is practical; though somehow in real life they did it.
3.) all bomb loadouts should be available except for the A-bomb of course. The b-29 carried a standard loadout of 20,000 pounds of ordinance. Modifications could be made to allow two external 22,000 pound "grand slam" bombs. Incendiary bombs should definitely be an option as the B-29 was widely known for carrying out night time/ low alt Fire bombing raids of Japanese cities and other strategic targets.
4.) formations allowed. This should be allowed because although the B-29 had a very advanced CFCS to defend itself from attacking fighters, it wasn't enough to completely protect itself from incoming fighters (especially ones that intended to ram the bomber). In real life, the b-29 combat ceiling and speed was its best defense. It was designed for high alt missions and could reach an altitude (it had a combat ceiling of 33,600 feet and a rate of climb of 900 ft/min) of 40,000 feet and a true air speed of 350 MPH; thus making the threat of fighter attacks unlikely and AA-fire almost impossible since the axis AA batteries did not have proximity fuses.
5.) When first introduced, the b-29 used four Wright R-3350 engines that were without a doubt a maintenance headache and were prone to causing catastrophic failures. Maybe in AH a random error (however small) could be designed to cause any of the four engines to suddenly seize up and stop. This could be one more factor that would limit the b-29's feared "uber" effectiveness; although, I know that I would be very upset if I lost my several hundred perk plane due to a random design flaw outside of my control.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29
-
When u search for perk points/perked planes on the main the main page isnt the B 29 LISTED as a perked ride?
-
When u search for perk points/perked planes on the main the main page isnt the B 29 LISTED as a perked ride?
No, it is listed as an example of the type of plane that would be perk-worthy, because availability in unlimited numbers would be unbalancing to gameplay.
-
Keep in mind that a big limiting factor in how the B-29 would be used is if it were base-restricted, similar to how the ME-163 is base-restricted. Nobody can deny that the ME-163 is an holy terror to any bombers that approach the HQ. It's godlike, and really nothing can touch it. But it's not generally available everywhere, so that's fine.
If the B-29 had to take off from either a zone base (a little closer to the front) or even the HQ bases, then missions with the B-29 would take a lot of time. That in itself would be a limiting factor to how much it's used, because most pilots in this game don't have the patience for a long bombing mission. And many of those who have the patience, don't have the interest.
So if a guy wants to take off from a zone base 4 sectors away from his target, fly up with 25k or whatever, drop a metric crapload of bombs on a strat target, then spend another 30 or 40 minutes flying back, then let him. Who's it hurting?
And, limited this way, the B-29 couldn't be used like a Lancstuka for bombing tanks, unless of course it's the zone base under attack, and the Lancstuka driver has some perkies to spare.
Seriously, the B-29 was used in WWII enough to meet the criteria, there are valid use cases for it, and, properly limited, it doesn't have to unbalance the game or anything. And it gives the guys who love to fly bombers around one more arrow in their quiver. And yes, there are people who pay their $15 a month to fly bombers around. It doesn't really matter whether any given individual who posts in this thread likes doing that or not - there are customers who pay every bit as much to play this game as anyone else, who do.
Bring on the B-29, skip the nuke. Let the organized, high-altitude B-29 missions begin. :rock
Amen I say to you... I would very much like a B29 in the game. Not for nuke purposes but for the pure joy of flying one. Im an avid B17 pilot and I hold high respects for the folks who spend time bombing in a realistic sort of manner. Realistic meaning that they spend that extra 5-10 minutes climbing to 20+ and hitting strategic targets and using combat tactics to exploit their targets.
-
Just for the record, as much as I support the idea of the B-29 in the game, if I had to choose, I'd rather see the HE-111 in the game first. I'm a big fan of scenarios and FSO, and whether the HE-111 would get flown all that much in the LW arenas or not, for these scenarios, snapshots, and FSO, it would really open up a lot of opportunities. The Battle of Britain scenario, for example, would be a lot more challenging for the Germans if they were flying HE-111s, than it is with them flying the JU-88. And we all know the Brits need all the help they can get in that scenario. ;-)
-
Amen I say to you... I would very much like a B29 in the game. Not for nuke purposes but for the pure joy of flying one. Im an avid B17 pilot and I hold high respects for the folks who spend time bombing in a realistic sort of manner. Realistic meaning that they spend that extra 5-10 minutes climbing to 20+ and hitting strategic targets and using combat tactics to exploit their targets.
Keep in mind you can go a lot lot higher than the 20s in the 17s. I did a deep strike once 5 sectors into enemy territory while threading the needle. (Radar Rings) and took down and enemy city all by my lonesome over 3 missions. I did it for the fun of it and I too do like bombing strats. The B-29 would make this much more fun. The Lancs are ok but just do not perform well. Hence they are used as they are. Even when you can get higher up in Lancs they really are tough to get in the upper levels. Then when joe bomber avenger sees they are Lancs you are sure to be engaged and shot down. Sometimes when a person sees you are in a 17 or 24 they simply go find an easier target. A 29 would be awesome for said reasons here.
-
I generally see no problem with the 29 being added in AH, the modeling and airfields are about the only thing that highly concern most. Making larger, and longer fields is something that can be fixed on the bases 1 sector away from the restricted airfields that are used to up 163's in case of an HQ attack.
Giving its full payload is something one airfield out of hundreds has to deal with. I'm completely sure no B-29 pilot would do that twice in a row; unless its someone who has many hours to climb up, up, up, level, bomb, climb down, down, down, and do that all over again.
Nuke is still an acceptable bomb, give it a 3 per country and reduce the radius so that its only capable of taking out the base. 24 hour period for the 3 nukes to be reset, no mounting of nuke bomb numbers, if the country doesn't use the 3 bombs, it won't mount to 6, it will stay at 3.
-FYB
-
Sometimes when a person sees you are in a 17 or 24 they simply go find an easier target. A 29 would be awesome for said reasons here.
That says something about Bombers in AH right there. The 8th Air Force should have had nothing to fear about enemy fighters. One flight of 3 bombers and the fighters go find some fighters to attack and leave the bombers alone.
-
Forget the nukes, well maybe for a scenerio.
Bring in the B-29 and make it so that only a few major bases can operate them. As one side wins and wins, like when the Bish are doing their horde thing, would push the action farther and farther from B-29 bases which would translate into less use 29 by the winning side.
Not that a whole lot have the patience to fly a 29 the way it should be. Most will rise to 15k and then run with it, making it just another bomber set at low Alt. And imagine a gaggle of 15yos in 190s and Mustangs seeing B-29s at 12k ? It would be like "Free blood day" at the Vampire convention. Perked 100 to 150 apiece will prevent a lot the bomb and bailing we already see, and nobody is going to upp them for CVs because their bases will be to far away and CVs are already killed easily with existing bombers. Ones that can be upped far closer to the CV already.
I would bet most B-29 runs would be made by dedicated bomber squads flying against strats, or at least squads wanting to try something different. Many would probably fly them one at a time.
It would be a great addition and would increase legitimate heavy bomber operations while cutting back on some of the bomber dweebery we see in the MAs now.
-
The nook would be interesting for scenario use. Say two B-29s get the nook and the rest convential loadouts. The only way to win would be by hitting the HQ with a nuke. This would only generate incessant whining for it in the MA and probably why it won't happen. I can see no reason why the B-29 shouldn't be in the game, unless the coding for the turrets can't be figured out. I would like to see Russian, Japanese, German and even Italian bombers. The more planes, the better.
edit: Unlike the P-39 and B-25C, the B-29 would be used. HTC can't be happy that all the work they did to implement those two planes resulted in such little usage. Anyone seen "the League of Airacobra Pilots" flying lately?
-
I believe the F117 has no gun making intercept moot.
Why would you want to use a gun on a b-29? With all those bombs in it, you'd go down in the secondary! That's what the laser guided bombs are for!
And on topic...
Why would you want clowns in the game?
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/c33641e3e8.jpg)
And I'll repost this one... simply because it's true...
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
If you do get the b-29, can it only be enabled on CV's? Not changing the CV length that is. ;)
-
The runways in AH are 1 mile long. They cannot be made longer, as they are the same distance end to end of a terrain grid square. Objects (such as runways) cannot cross over a grid line, or they do not work properly and are not allowed when building a terrain. I seriously doubt they would entirely redo the terrain making system just to add one uber plane. Plus, it cannot fit inside the bomber hanger, another prerequisite. Oh let me guess, y'all want em to redo the bomber hangers then too. For one plane.... :rolleyes:
:salute
-
This may be a noob question, but where do you get the B29 animation?
-
B-29 and the Nook:
Operation Silverplate:
USAAF sent instructions to its Army Air Forces Materiel Command at Wright Field, Ohio, on November 30, 1943, for a highly-classified B-29 modification project. The Manhattan Project would deliver full-sized mockups of the weapons shapes to Wright Field by mid-December, where AAFMC would modify an aircraft and deliver it for use in bomb flight testing at Muroc Army Air Field, California.
B-29-5-BW 42-6259 (referred to as the "Pullman airplane" from an internal code name assigned it by the Engineering Division of AAF Materiel Command) was delivered to the 468th Bomb Group at Smoky Hill AAB, Kansas on November 30, 1943, and flown to Wright Field, Ohio, on December 2. Modifications to the bomb bays were extensive and time-consuming. Its four 12-foot bomb bay doors and the fuselage section between the bays were removed and a single 33-foot bomb bay configured (the length of the gun-type shape was approximately seventeen feet). New bomb suspensions and bracing were attached for both shape types, with the gun-type suspension anchored in the aft bomb bay (although its length protruded into the forward bay) and the implosion type mounted in the forward bay. Separate twin-release mechanisms were mounted in each bay, using modified glider tow-cable attach-and-release mechanisms. To document the tests, motion picture camera mounts were installed in the rear bay.
The modifications were made using the dummy bomb shapes as models, and the gun-type shape (code-named Thin Man) proved to be a very close fit. All modifications were made by hand and the process required more than 6000 man-hours of labor which could not be completed until February. Engine problems systemic to the B-29 delayed delivery of the Pullman B-29 for flight testing until February 20, 1944.
(Yeeesss, I copied it from wiki (http://smilies.vidahost.com/otn/sad/1Cry.gif))
Modified for the bomb to fit. In the event that a B-29 would be added, I doubt a modified B-29 would be added.
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1411/nonooks.jpg)
wrongway
-
What is the current length of the runways in Aces High?
Based on the Given:
OAT 38deg C
Sea Level
115,000 lbs Avg GTOW
Concrete Dry Runway
No Wind
25 Deg Flaps
47.5 Map
50' Obstacle chart used here.
Take Off distance for the B29 is 4,620 feet.
So depending on the runway lengths this might poke a hole in the whole airfield Re Do argument.
Also I highly doubt the modeling of the aircraft was done with 38 Deg C in mind. If ISA was used to calculate performance models then the TO Distance for the B29 would be less. More like 4200'. Keep in mind the GTOW here was mid range, (115,000 lbs).
Obviously if you are going to use GTOW of 190,000 lbs @ ISA +0 you'd be in trouble getting off the ground here in Aces. You'd be talking a TO Distance of 12,000 feet.
What would be FUN IMO for many Aces Pilots would be the considerations you would have to consider with a long range heavy bomb load out! It would be very PRONOUNCED with the B29 and could be very educational for many new pilots, and veteran pilots who would be new to bombers.
That said it would be another request that ammo load outs (If the B29 was to be heavily perked) could be adjustable as well and movable too! Maybe you would prefer to have more ammo in the rear guns than all of it up front? Or if not movable then give us more ammo in the rear, belly, and top guns if possible.
Anyway :salute I think after reading all the posts we ought to have the B29. I think it would be very interesting. I'm also a no nook guy too!
Keep in mind that a big limiting factor in how the B-29 would be used is if it were base-restricted, similar to how the ME-163 is base-restricted. Nobody can deny that the ME-163 is an holy terror to any bombers that approach the HQ. It's godlike, and really nothing can touch it. But it's not generally available everywhere, so that's fine.
If the B-29 had to take off from either a zone base (a little closer to the front) or even the HQ bases, then missions with the B-29 would take a lot of time. That in itself would be a limiting factor to how much it's used, because most pilots in this game don't have the patience for a long bombing mission. And many of those who have the patience, don't have the interest.
So if a guy wants to take off from a zone base 4 sectors away from his target, fly up with 25k or whatever, drop a metric crapload of bombs on a strat target, then spend another 30 or 40 minutes flying back, then let him. Who's it hurting?
And, limited this way, the B-29 couldn't be used like a Lancstuka for bombing tanks, unless of course it's the zone base under attack, and the Lancstuka driver has some perkies to spare.
Seriously, the B-29 was used in WWII enough to meet the criteria, there are valid use cases for it, and, properly limited, it doesn't have to unbalance the game or anything. And it gives the guys who love to fly bombers around one more arrow in their quiver. And yes, there are people who pay their $15 a month to fly bombers around. It doesn't really matter whether any given individual who posts in this thread likes doing that or not - there are customers who pay every bit as much to play this game as anyone else, who do.
Bring on the B-29, skip the nuke. Let the organized, high-altitude B-29 missions begin. :rock
I used to be a stead-fast anti-B-29 guy, but these two posts are making me seriously reconsider. Two very good points made.
-
what he said..../\
-
Forget the nukes, well maybe for a scenerio.
Bring in the B-29 and make it so that only a few major bases can operate them. As one side wins and wins, like when the Bish are doing their horde thing, would push the action farther and farther from B-29 bases which would translate into less use 29 by the winning side.
Not that a whole lot have the patience to fly a 29 the way it should be. Most will rise to 15k and then run with it, making it just another bomber set at low Alt. And imagine a gaggle of 15yos in 190s and Mustangs seeing B-29s at 12k ? It would be like "Free blood day" at the Vampire convention. Perked 100 to 150 apiece will prevent a lot the bomb and bailing we already see, and nobody is going to upp them for CVs because their bases will be to far away and CVs are already killed easily with existing bombers. Ones that can be upped far closer to the CV already.
I would bet most B-29 runs would be made by dedicated bomber squads flying against strats, or at least squads wanting to try something different. Many would probably fly them one at a time.
It would be a great addition and would increase legitimate heavy bomber operations while cutting back on some of the bomber dweebery we see in the MAs now.
I agree with this totally! Well thought out and I think this is how the 29 ought to be used if added. I'm thinking not just the B29 be perked but maybe all should be to some extent to keep the bombing dweebery (<-- :rofl) down to a minimum. There should be cost to the bombing and ditching aspect. As folks do not just up a 262, so should it be with other aircraft too.
-
The runways in AH are 1 mile long. They cannot be made longer, as they are the same distance end to end of a terrain grid square. Objects (such as runways) cannot cross over a grid line, or they do not work properly and are not allowed when building a terrain. I seriously doubt they would entirely redo the terrain making system just to add one uber plane. Plus, it cannot fit inside the bomber hanger, another prerequisite. Oh let me guess, y'all want em to redo the bomber hangers then too. For one plane.... :rolleyes:
:salute
Thanks for answering my question Ranger!!!
Now why can't the hangars on the fields that are NOT ABLE TO BE CAPTURED (ONLY) be modified to handle the B-29? Is that too much to ask for all the customers here who want the B-29? Keep in mind my prior post about load outs, take off performance etc. I think it would be great fun to have to practice taking off with various fuel, ammo, bomb, load outs to see what a particular pilot can get his plane to do!
Furthermore, you would have to really plan out and carryout your missions with great care. IF perked with a good amount of points you would want to bring some buddies as escorts or have them wing up with you when you get close to your run. The other posts about being more of a strat bomber is spot on! I think it would also make more use of the whole strat concept here in the game if they were able to be brought down a little more efficiently by the enemy. You'd also have to defend strats a little more, adding more dimension to the game.
So if you go back and see, with a medium loadout. Takeoffs would be dicey and require skill and airmanship. Sorry but no auto takeoffs here! You'd have to go for the long haul, high altitude.
One last thought. What if you made them juicy targets too? So that the pilot who can take them down gets extra perkies too? With that addition would that make it more attractive to add the 29 to those who oppose it so staunchly?
Hey, again thanks for the answer Ranger! :salute
-
As most people i always up my Me163 out of the fighter hanger..... just like id up a B29 out of a flipping bomber hanger....
-
Actually, my FSO squad will often up fighters from the fighter hangar and then taxi to the end of the runway, gather up into a nice gaggle, and launch together. It's not necessary, and it's not like we're totally hard-core realism simulators, but hey it's FSO, and it's kinda fun.
-
god ur all kitten killers
-
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/brayidur/b29request.jpg)
-
Don't forget that buffs with formations get screwed up when they take off from hangers.
-
Maybe only have the B29s take off from "LARGE" AFs ?
-
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/brayidur/b29request.jpg)
I saw a sign today that proves we're getting the B-29...
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/freecatll3.jpg)
-
Actually, my FSO squad will often up fighters from the fighter hangar and then taxi to the end of the runway, gather up into a nice gaggle, and launch together. It's not necessary, and it's not like we're totally hard-core realism simulators, but hey it's FSO, and it's kinda fun.
Ya know, that sounds like fun!
-
I saw a sign today that proves we're getting the B-29...
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/freecatll3.jpg)
Hey, it's my kitty Dinnah!
-
The runways in AH are 1 mile long. They cannot be made longer, as they are the same distance end to end of a terrain grid square. Objects (such as runways) cannot cross over a grid line, or they do not work properly and are not allowed when building a terrain. I seriously doubt they would entirely redo the terrain making system just to add one uber plane. Plus, it cannot fit inside the bomber hanger, another prerequisite. Oh let me guess, y'all want em to redo the bomber hangers then too. For one plane.... :rolleyes:
:salute
Keep in mind that HTC is currently working on a new terrain package. Whos to say that maybe the grids will be larger? Perhaps with this new terrain, it may be possible to create a larger base, assuming they either make the grids larger, or fix the bug that prevents objects from crossing grid lines. I have seen some objects cross grid lines in the current package. Note the roads that which supply convoys drive on. The roads travel many miles between strats and bases and the roads are continuous. Also dont forget about the railroads as well.
Anyways, if this new terrain package comes out, it may be possible for the B29 to be considered in the game by HTC.
Seriously, why all the trash talk and dissin' on the B29? Take the nuke away, and give it the regular bomb load. Perk the ride, and maybe we will see a greater appreciation of bombers.
-
10 year anniversary is around the corner, maybe we’ll get a present from HTC.
-
Yeah the G4M and a perk loadout choice of the Yokosuka MXY-7.
-
I would sincerely like to see the B-29 in game without a nuke. However there are glaring holes in the plane/gv set that would be higher priority to fill first.
-
simple. take the nuke away an give a norm. bomb load, or use the nuke for a scemario event, just an idea :aok
-
simple. take the nuke away an give a norm. bomb load, or use the nuke for a scemario event, just an idea :aok
You're still creating a VERY VERY difficult bomber to kill, seeing as we lack the high-altitude variants of our aircraft which would have been tasked with it's destruction.
-
b17s abd b24s in AH now fly at full throttle as fast and as high as B29s ever did operationally, so what's the point? Until the bomber system in this game is remodeled, the B-29 has no place, being 100% uncatchable at full speed and at 35k.
-
b17s abd b24s in AH now fly at full throttle as fast and as high as B29s ever did operationally, so what's the point? Until the bomber system in this game is remodeled, the B-29 has no place, being 100% uncatchable at full speed and at 35k.
262 or 163 anyone..... the DA bombers would take this for runways so i say yes { i am a DA bomb newb }
-
262 or 163 anyone.....
The 262 IIRC doesn't have the climb rate to be competitive in catching it. The 163 is severely restricted in operating bases.
-
262 or 163 anyone..... the DA bombers would take this for runways so i say yes { i am a DA bomb newb }
The 262's service ceiling would not allow it to catch a smart B-29 pilot. The Superfortress can simply fly higher.
-
You guys keep yapping about altitude. How many people do you know would get 300 perkies, go 35k and bomb? It takes about 2:30 just to get at 35k and then by god, its hard enough to bomb with a B-17G, 20 - 25k with the clouds, wind, and etc. Besides, B-29's were loaded with the Norden Bombsight, which was being rushed out into the new b-29's and were not tested properly, this made accuracy horrible.
So whats to be scared off? It can't do a daing thing with its 20mm, unless someone came up there and yet again it could outclimb any A/C. It be a great bomber to add, but i would say it should be put in scenarios where they will use it.
It'll see little action in the MA sense it will take so long to get up to 35k and with the Norden, clouds, winds, and etc. you might as well randomly drop if you wish to hit something.
-FYB
-
You guys keep yapping about altitude. How many people do you know would get 300 perkies, go 35k and bomb? It takes about 2:30 just to get at 35k and then by god, its hard enough to bomb with a B-17G, 20 - 25k with the clouds, wind, and etc. Besides, B-29's were loaded with the Norden Bombsight, which was being rushed out into the new b-29's and were not tested properly, this made accuracy horrible.
The people who WILL go to those altitudes, myself included, are the biggest danger to the MAs, because we're the ones who will do it right, and WON'T miss. We will make the B-29 invincible in the MAs.
-
It'll see little action in the MA sense it will take so long to get up to 35k and with the Norden, clouds, winds, and etc. you might as well randomly drop if you wish to hit something.
-FYB
You can hit the head of a pin from 35k in Aces High. The air is perfectly still and the bombsight is laser accurate. And then of course at 35k the 262 is non-operational (I think it's ceiling is somewhere around 30?), and only very few aircraft become effective... the only effective interceptors would really be the P47N (climbrate lol), Ta 152 (glass nose), Spitfire MkXIV maybe (?) (glass wings) and Me 163.
-
go 35k and bomb? It takes about 2:30 just to get at 35k and then by god, its hard enough to bomb with a B-17G, 20 - 25k with the clouds, wind, and etc.
(http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc74/Serene_One/Aces%20High/B-17GMAX1.jpg)
Sorry, didn't take post-bombing pics, but Ill make another strato-run this weekend and get some.
-
Look at the sky, lol. I thought you took a picture of the B17 from inside the cockpit in the skin viewer before I realized the purpose of the picture :rofl
-
Just add the damn thing, so we can move on.
Next threads
Me-410
20mm Pony
Zephlins
Killable Sheep
Hot Air Ballon Races
Squirels with or without Cameras
Panther Tank
and last but not least
Free H2H (for you cheapos who do not want to pay)
-
:rofl
-
Look at the sky, lol. I thought you took a picture of the B17 from inside the cockpit in the skin viewer before I realized the purpose of the picture :rofl
lol. I could see the curvature of the AH earth from up there!
-
you can from a Ta152 or an Me163 as well... mabee more but i havent tryed any others... or care to
-
I wish they just made the B-29 a sticky thread :aok
-
you can from a Ta152 or an Me163 as well... mabee more but i havent tryed any others... or care to
The Ta 152H's climb rate is miserable... well, maybe not miserable but pretty close, especially when you're talking about climbing to 40k+ (well, anything's climb rate is miserable when you have to climb that high). On top of that, once you get there you still have to attack the bombers... the inline engined 190's (D and H) all have that glass annular radiator in front... seems like it only takes one or two .50's to cut your flight time to another 5 minutes or so. Not so viable an interceptor when you're attacking the fastest piston engined bombers of the war. The only real option for attacking Superfortresses at altitude would be the Me 163.
-
My quote was about seing the curiture of the AH areana not attacking B29's
-
and last but not least
Free H2H (for you cheapos who do not want to pay)
I would put that on top of anyone's list :D
-
I Made the horrible mistake of subscirbing to this thread Dx<
-
NUKE
-
I am all for B29's, they will let you kill multiple bases in one sortie!!! :aok. But serisouly, the current bombers don't have the bomb load to do that, and the B29 was faster then any jap fighter, and I would assume faster then around half the fighters in the game, plus in Titanic Tuesday we bombed those base so much there was a huge crater where the base and town used to be but we still had to wait 1 hr to land troops.
-
*THUNDER* *LIGHTNING* The B-29 thread lives! Muahahaha! *THUNDER* *LIGHTNING* :D
-FYB
-
I am all for B29's, they will let you kill multiple bases in one sortie!!! :aok. But serisouly, the current bombers don't have the bomb load to do that, and the B29 was faster then any jap fighter, and I would assume faster then around half the fighters in the game, plus in Titanic Tuesday we bombed those base so much there was a huge crater where the base and town used to be but we still had to wait 1 hr to land troops.
... 5$ on the troll theory.
GAME BALANCE, ever heard of it?
-
I honestly don't think the runway thing is gonna be much of an issue. (At least not for me anyway.) For those people using that as an exuse to keep this plane out of AH, I've got a video I'd love to show you involving me in a B-17 landing on a CV, loading and fueling up, then taking off again. And you're gonna tell me that given a full runway I wont get a B-29 off the ground?
-
Just add the damn thing, so we can move on.
Next threads
Me-410
Thats the plane I'd really like to see added, was hoping it was gonna win the vote we had for the next plane instead of the B-25.
-
I honestly don't think the runway thing is gonna be much of an issue. (At least not for me anyway.) For those people using that as an exuse to keep this plane out of AH, I've got a video I'd love to show you involving me in a B-17 landing on a CV, loading and fueling up, then taking off again. And you're gonna tell me that given a full runway I wont get a B-29 off the ground?
Find me a runway traveling at 35 knots. Then, put a hill at the end of it.
:D
wrongway
-
I honestly don't think the runway thing is gonna be much of an issue. (At least not for me anyway.) For those people using that as an exuse to keep this plane out of AH, I've got a video I'd love to show you involving me in a B-17 landing on a CV, loading and fueling up, then taking off again. And you're gonna tell me that given a full runway I wont get a B-29 off the ground?
Yes. Because as Wrongway said, that runway is moving at 35 knots, which means it is as if the runway is much longer than it actually is. Also, I GUARANTEE you were not carrying much fuel on your aircraft. I've landed, rearmed, and launched Lancasters off of carriers. The trick is fuel, weight, oh, and the runway is MOVING!!!
-
:( another kitten died!
-
ENOUGH! either add the B-29 or someone just lock this thing and send it to the depths of irrelavency.
BTW wheres 8player?
-
ENOUGH! either add the B-29 or someone just lock this thing and send it to the depths of irrelavency.
BTW wheres 8player?
unless your not particularly fond of kittens
-
I don't think there is any one realistic topic on this wishlist thread that is as active as the request for the B-29. The majority of the posts come from people with legitimate reasons as to why this aircraft as much or more right to be in this game as say the Ar234, and the lesser half are just afraid such an aircraft will unbalance the game (kinda like how the Me262 does now, right?) And then of course you get the occasional hammerhead wanting to put A-bombs on it which gives it even more of a bad vibe.
This is why they came up with the perk system people. Obviously if this plane ever does show up its gonna be right up there with the 262 and will see limited use by die-hard buff pilots who will know how to use it. If anything at all it'll get people into using bombers the way they were meant to be against strats and cities instead of using them as the one way trips that you tend to see in the game more often than not.
Bottom line is as long as this bird stays on the wishlist and out of AH, people aren't gonna stop asking for it so until it shows up May the merciless slaughter of kittens continue.....
-
If u cant tell I'm a dog person
-
I don't think there is any one realistic topic on this wishlist thread that is as active as the request for the B-29. The majority of the posts come from people with legitimate reasons as to why this aircraft as much or more right to be in this game as say the Ar234, and the lesser half are just afraid such an aircraft will unbalance the game (kinda like how the Me262 does now, right?) And then of course you get the occasional hammerhead wanting to put A-bombs on it which gives it even more of a bad vibe.
This is why they came up with the perk system people. Obviously if this plane ever does show up its gonna be right up there with the 262 and will see limited use by die-hard buff pilots who will know how to use it. If anything at all it'll get people into using bombers the way they were meant to be against strats and cities instead of using them as the one way trips that you tend to see in the game more often than not.
Bottom line is as long as this bird stays on the wishlist and out of AH, people aren't gonna stop asking for it so until it shows up May the merciless slaughter of kittens continue.....
The point is, the B-29 has the potential to be even more destabilizing than the 262, because it can fly where no other plane can intercept it. IIRC, we have NO aircraft in game that could catch the B-29 at proper altitude.
-
I've been up to those altitudes in a Ta152 before. Hey, maybe a B-29 in the game will actually give that plane a purpose for once.
-
I've been up to those altitudes in a Ta152 before. Hey, maybe a B-29 in the game will actually give that plane a purpose for once.
I don't believe the Ta-152H has the speed to catch the B-29 up there.
-
Waw, 12 threads and it's still about the B-29? That's miraculous!
-
I don't believe the Ta-152H has the speed to catch the B-29 up there.
Well you know what, my F6F doesn't have the speed to catch up to a 262. I deal with it!
-
I just got done test flying the Ta-152, I got up to 40,000 feet (about 5000 higher than the max alt for the B-29) and held a true speed of 388mph (31 mph faster than the max speed for the B-29). I originally took off with 100% fuel and a drop tank and by the time I reached 40,000 (about an 18 minute climb)i still had about 50 minutes of fuel left to stay up there and patrol. the Ta-152 was still comfortably manuverable and controlable at least up to 37,200 feet and it packs sufficient firepower to take down a bomber of that size.
-
I don't believe the Ta-152H has the speed to catch the B-29 up there.
Wiki says 33K and 357 mph. Had a Spit 14 up there a few days ago. TAS was somewhere around 440-420. N jug, TA 152, and dunno about the 262. Other planes also fly fast enough at 20k to run down anything chugging along at 360 TAS in round figures. Oh, also had a TA 152 up at 35k escorting a few weeks ago. Way fast.
B29 with proper load out for AH would be wonderful. Period. HTC could trick it up so the door do not open below 25K or 15K or whatever alt they say.
Also, i don't know how the guns worked, but HTC could make them "work" for the world of AH. It's rate of climb at 900 feet per min is inline with our current buffs.
For grins, I have a pony at 33k right now in the MA. 410 TAS with 1 left showing on the climb line in e6b. according to speed charts, pony is much faster at 25k. Pony, N Jug, and TA152 are fast enough to run down a 29. At 25 to 20k, then even more join the chase.
-
Wiki says 33K and 357 mph. Had a Spit 14 up there a few days ago. TAS was somewhere around 440-420. N jug, TA 152, and dunno about the 262. Other planes also fly fast enough at 20k to run down anything chugging along at 360 TAS in round figures. Oh, also had a TA 152 up at 35k escorting a few weeks ago. Way fast.
B29 with proper load out for AH would be wonderful. Period. HTC could trick it up so the door do not open below 25K or 15K or whatever alt they say.
Also, i don't know how the guns worked, but HTC could make them "work" for the world of AH. It's rate of climb at 900 feet per min is inline with our current buffs.
I like that idea. It would most certainly force the noobs to bomb a little better at a more appropriate altitude. A lot less dweebery and a lot more simulation and realism. Id give a minimum of 10-15k for the bomb doors to open for good measure. In fact, Id set that limitation for almost all the other bombers (the bombers with superior performance above 15k, that is).
-
another dead kitten
-
I hate kittens, KILL'EM ALL!!!!
-
Where do you get the 35,000 ceiling for the B-29?
-
35k = a round figure that establishes fighter speed merely.
-
35k = a round figure that establishes fighter speed merely.
But the B-29 could, without much difficulty, fly a bit higher, correct?
-
sure, after rolling off all your bombs and spending 2/3 of your fuel I would imagine your max altitude would increase. In my B-24 the altitude I usually drop at is around 28k. If I were to continue climbing for maby another 20 minutes I could reach over 30K but after making my run and turning for home I usually get up to 34K on the way back.
-
2499 views! 2500 views!
-FYB
-
sure, after rolling off all your bombs and spending 2/3 of your fuel I would imagine your max altitude would increase. In my B-24 the altitude I usually drop at is around 28k. If I were to continue climbing for maby another 20 minutes I could reach over 30K but after making my run and turning for home I usually get up to 34K on the way back.
No, even WITH the bomb load the B-29 was known not only for it's speed, but for it's alt. cap. Its alt. cap. was significantly higher than the B-17 IIRC, which caps at 35,500 ft. (IRL) and 35,750 ft. (In game)
-
No, even WITH the bomb load the B-29 was known not only for it's speed, but for it's alt. cap. Its alt. cap. was significantly higher than the B-17 IIRC, which caps at 35,500 ft. (IRL) and 35,750 ft. (In game)
From my Info cards (Part of a WWII History box set) this is what I have:
B-17 Service ceiling: 35,000 Feet
B-24 Service ceiling: 28,000 Feet
B-29 Service Ceiling: 33,600 Feet
B-26 Service Ceiling: 19,800 Feet
Either the people would made these cards are idiots, or there is a misinformation somewhere. I would be more than happy to have someone with the correct (if these are wrong) info to fix these. The b-26 alt sounds way off, but I have no idea honestly. :salute
Edit, had B24/17 mixed up.
-
From my Info cards (Part of a WWII History box set) this is what I have:
B-17 Service ceiling: 35,000 Feet
B-24 Service ceiling: 28,000 Feet
B-29 Service Ceiling: 33,600 Feet
B-26 Service Ceiling: 19,800 Feet
Either the people would made these cards are idiots, or there is a misinformation somewhere. I would be more than happy to have someone with the correct (if these are wrong) info to fix these. The b-26 alt sounds way off, but I have no idea honestly. :salute
Edit, had B24/17 mixed up.
B-17 by FlyPast as well as Flying Fortress: an Illustrated History has the B-17G at 35,500, just to nit-pick.
The B-29 having a lower service ceiling really doesn't sound right, but in all honesty I don't have any sources on it.
-
a quick google of "b29 service ceiling" comes up with 31 to 33
b26 21 to 25
b 17 consistent 35's
who would of thought
-
These are all the specs for the B-29 I got of the Wiki page. It includes speed, altitude, armament ect.
Specifications (B-29)
General characteristics
Crew: 11: (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot),[21][22]. bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 ft² (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (142,000 lb on record))
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km)
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nm, 9,000 km)
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament
Guns:
10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
Bombs:
20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs.
-
Does this fit into the existing AH Bomber Hangar? Since we were schooled earlier that the bomber has to fit into the hangar as some sort of HTC rule? :rofl
If it does not fit into the hangar then why not make it a RUNWAY SPAWN only bomber making it even more vulnerable so that all the ANTI B29 Dweebs have that much more for the Vulchy Perkies? HMMM? What about that? :rofl
Hey! I REALLY like the bomb bay door opening at a 15k minimum idea! GREAT IDEA. Then we can get certain stuka lancs out of the as it was put "simulation". VERY GOOD POINT. Then bombers would be used a little more like they are supposed to be used for.
I would only change one thing. I would say that the medium and light bombers should still be able to open their doors at lower alts. But still be limited. Say to 5,000 feet AGL. Above ground level as it were.
GREAT POINT!
:salute
-
Does this fit into the existing AH Bomber Hangar? Since we were schooled earlier that the bomber has to fit into the hangar as some sort of HTC rule? :rofl
If it does not fit into the hangar then why not make it a RUNWAY SPAWN only bomber making it even more vulnerable so that all the ANTI B29 Dweebs have that much more for the Vulchy Perkies? HMMM? What about that? :rofl
Hey! I REALLY like the bomb bay door opening at a 15k minimum idea! GREAT IDEA. Then we can get certain stuka lancs out of the as it was put "simulation". VERY GOOD POINT. Then bombers would be used a little more like they are supposed to be used for.
I would only change one thing. I would say that the medium and light bombers should still be able to open their doors at lower alts. But still be limited. Say to 5,000 feet AGL. Above ground level as it were.
GREAT POINT!
:salute
And if we want to recreate Ploesti?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/050524-F-1234P-021.jpg)
-
And if we want to recreate Ploesti?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/050524-F-1234P-021.jpg)
Climb to 15k. Open Bomb Bay doors. Dive to the deck.
wrongway
-
Climb to 15k. Open Bomb Bay doors. Dive to the deck.
wrongway
No. Weren't you there when Solar, myself and a few of the others took B-24s NOE to bomb a fuel factory that time?
-
i say add it no nook perked 600 and it should only be flown from a few fields, although the concept of the ice carrier that can carry B-29s i forget where i heard it, but it was an idea by a great man then he went insane trying to make it possible lol
-
Here, I did this just for a comparison. All data comes from the warbird resource group, except the B-29 data which comes from Boeings web site.
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/Untitled.jpg)
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html)
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/ (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/)
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what was the purpose of the Polesti runs in WW2?
-
I say if it was to be added just do it like the 163's
1. Can only up from certain large bases. That meens only those few bases would need any kind of runway redo.
2. Perk it
3. No formations
4. NO NUKES
makes sense to me. :aok
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what was the purpose of the Polesti runs in WW2?
Hitting fuel refineries. Lack of fuel is what really crippled the Luftwaffe more than anything else.
-
Pardon my ignorance, but what was the purpose of the Polesti runs in WW2?
Disrupt the production of fuel for the German war machine. :D
I suppose you are asking about the Low Level raid, Operation Tidal Wave. It was supposed to be a "sneak in under radar" affair. Unfortunately one of the lead bombers doing the navigation was lost on the way. Some of the bomb groups missed a turn and arrived a bit late. And, just because you fly low doesn't mean someone doesn't SEE you and report it.
54 of 177 bombers were lost. The refinery was 40% damaged but quickly repaired.
Ploesti was also dive bombed by P-38s on June 10, 1944.LINK (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3897/is_200312/ai_n9310834/)
wrongway
-
Here, I did this just for a comparison. All data comes from the warbird resource group, except the B-29 data which comes from Boeings web site.
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/Untitled.jpg)
http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html (http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b29.html)
http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/ (http://www.warbirdsresourcegroup.org/)
VERY NICE POST!!! WELL DONE!!
-
I say if it was to be added just do it like the 163's
1. Can only up from certain large bases. That meens only those few bases would need any kind of runway redo.
2. Perk it
3. No formations
4. NO NUKES
makes sense to me. :aok
I think we should have formations, then it will be more than lancs. We could just take up lancs and we wouldn't need to spend the perks.
-
m00t already exploded this pic.
Besides the landscape, notice that the air speed indicator and e6b do not match.
I made that pic. I did it as a joke, the text buffer had a conversation with Superdud in it, someone has blanked it out to try and make it look more genuine (something which i never intended).
I also photoshopped one of a B-29 divebombing an AH CV from the cockpit view, but i don't think that has survived anywhere.
-
furbie ! where have you been old pirate ?
-
Havent seen this in 2 months so.....
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
-
And if we want to recreate Ploesti?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d4/050524-F-1234P-021.jpg)
You mean an NOE raid?
I've NEVER done one of THOSE before!
-
You mean an NOE raid?
I've NEVER done one of THOSE before!
I usually frown on them, but if you're actually recreating Ploesti (B-24s NOE to a fuel depot) it's actually quite fun!
-
i would like tos see bombing missions like the ones in WW2, hundreds of bombers at once!!!! but idk if theres that many players?
-
Havent seen this in 2 months so.....
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
That clip deserves a special place next to the middle school sex-ed vieos :aok
-
OMG again with the 29s :huh
-
The B-29 wishes are kinda dieing out for the moment, maybe they got tired aswell?
-
(http://www.grographics.com/transient/free-cat.jpg)
-
it is funny to see how many ppl don't want the B-29/ What are you afraid of, loosing your 262 and perk points.
-
it is funny to see how many ppl don't want the B-29/ What are you afraid of, loosing your 262 and perk points.
I want it, I just like the dead cat jokes
-
I want it, I just like the dead cat jokes
I know you want it. b ut there are other dont for some reason. I am looking for a fox.
-
I know you want it. b ut there are other dont for some reason. I am looking for a fox.
Game balance disruption + Epic l337 b0mb3r$ who will take it up as high as it can, where it's completly unstopable + highest loadout of any bomber (in game at least) + speed + good guns + (repeat) unstopable = good idea?
Hmm... I think I made a mistake with my calculations, that solution can't be right...
-
The Japanese didn't want to allow the B-29 either. :noid
I'd rather see some more axis bombers... after a bunch more fighters.
-
Game balance disruption + Epic l337 b0mb3r$ who will take it up as high as it can, where it's completely unstopable + highest loadout of any bomber (in game at least) + speed + good guns + (repeat) unstopable = good idea?
Hmm... I think I made a mistake with my calculations, that solution can't be right...
About a week ago I was flying a B-17 mission where I got all the way up to 37,000 feet. Interestingly enough, a P-38 followed my flight all the way up there. It took this guy about 50 minutes of climbing before finally reaching me. (and getting shot down soon after) I recorded the whole engagement and even though I did kill him, It still proves that you CAN get to that altitude with certain planes and like this individual, you will still be for the most part combat effective. I will go as far as saying that if he had two or three buddies with him in a coordinated effort, he might have actually got me.
P.S. how do I post videos like this and where?
-
Very few guys are going to climb 29s to extreme heights. HQs will still be defended by those obnoxious little rocket thingies and 90% of the time 29s will be at Alts that will make standard interception easy.
Dont forget we have some monster high Alt. fighters in the game including the almighty Ta-152, "which isnt perked anymore". There are other planes more then a match for it too. Some perked, some not. Some post 30,000' speed numbers above 470 mph. If we ever got the Mig-3 that crop of high Alt. fighters would grow even more.
There would be an initial rush of B-29 sorties as everyone burned thru their bomber perks but that would sort itself out. Eventually your only going to lose so many 100 perk point bombers. Everyone of the bomber operations Ive flown have been in the 20,000' to 25,000' range. An altitude easily reached by fighters in the game.
-
If we ever got the Mig-3 that crop of high Alt. fighters would grow even more.
Yes, the MiG 3 would be a superb interceptor of the B-29, with its twin .30 caliber machine guns and single .50 caliber machine gun.
-
The Japanese didn't want to allow the B-29 either. :noid
:rofl
-
Yes, the MiG 3 would be a superb interceptor of the B-29, with its twin .30 caliber machine guns and single .50 caliber machine gun.
Later versions were upgunned...bro. Point being there were fighters able to intercept high Alt bombers.
-
Later versions were upgunned...bro. Point being there were fighters able to intercept high Alt bombers.
Most upgunned version I've seen had a Yak style armament (2 UBS and one ShVAK). That's still a miserable armament for attacking fast, heavily armed high altitude bombers.
Anyway it's top speed was still only under 400mph at 25K.
The MiG 3 was a decent high altitude performer when compared to its contemporaries.
However, its contemporaries included the Bf 109F and Fw 190A. It would undoubtedly be a good match against the He 111 and Ju 88. But not the B29.
-
I almost feel like starting another thread soon just for the people who don't want the B-29 in the game and constantly complain and come up with all these little facts about how it would unbalance the game yet fail to mention or relate the same to the ME-262. I think I'll call this thread "Your sister called, she says she wants her skirt back"
Sorry, bad day at work and I had to get all the A#@*%le outta me :rofl
-
Very few guys are going to climb 29s to extreme heights. HQs will still be defended by those obnoxious little rocket thingies and 90% of the time 29s will be at Alts that will make standard interception easy.
Dont forget we have some monster high Alt. fighters in the game including the almighty Ta-152, "which isnt perked anymore". There are other planes more then a match for it too. Some perked, some not. Some post 30,000' speed numbers above 470 mph. If we ever got the Mig-3 that crop of high Alt. fighters would grow even more.
There would be an initial rush of B-29 sorties as everyone burned thru their bomber perks but that would sort itself out. Eventually your only going to lose so many 100 perk point bombers. Everyone of the bomber operations Ive flown have been in the 20,000' to 25,000' range. An altitude easily reached by fighters in the game.
thats the reason why it could be added. . .and the reason people don't realize that not many people are going to spend 45 mins getting to these massive altitudes when they can just replane and fly a second bomber run in the same time. I.e. In internet airplanes, people are lazy first.
-
thats the reason why it could be added. . .and the reason people don't realize that not many people are going to spend 45 mins getting to these massive altitudes when they can just replane and fly a second bomber run in the same time. I.e. In internet airplanes, people are lazy first.
But see, the guys who can afford a B-29 to begin with WILL climb to those altitudes. And THEN, you will see why the B-29 shouldn't be added. If we ever get one, I am taking myself and Overlag on a pwnage sortie. One continuous pork-flight at 35k, and the whines on 200 will only back up the sentiment that we should NOT have this bomber until we have something that can catch it at altitude.
-
I really don't see any reason to ever add the B-29. It's an awful idea that will only further reduce the quality of gameplay, at least for those us who still enjoying fighting in this game.
-
But see, the guys who can afford a B-29 to begin with WILL climb to those altitudes. And THEN, you will see why the B-29 shouldn't be added. If we ever get one, I am taking myself and Overlag on a pwnage sortie. One continuous pork-flight at 35k, and the whines on 200 will only back up the sentiment that we should NOT have this bomber until we have something that can catch it at altitude.
There are a few planes that are capable of catching a B29 at altitude:
1. P-47N
2. ME-262
3. ME-163
4. P-51 B&D
5. TA-152
I put the P-47N at the top of the list because that plane was specifically designed to escort the B-29. Even though it is prop-driven, it has a supercharger and is more than capable of keeping up with it. Then follows the two German jets. They both have outstanding speeds at 35k+. The P-51s may be able to stick with the B-29, as well. Lastly, the TA-152 is able to keep up with the B-29 due to its aerodynamics. Its wings are long and slender, which make it perfect for high altitudes.
Given that the B-29 is accepted into the game, I believe that the main threats are those five planes listed above. They all have outstanding high altitude performance and has sufficient enough firepower to knock a B-29 down to chinatown. The trick is, being able to detect a B-29 beforehand so that these planes have enough time to get to altitude and engage the bomber before it does any serious damage.
-
The B-29 was part of the reason the Ta-152 was developed as well. German Intel. had no problem finding out about the new super-bomber the Yanks were building and part of the response was the Ta-152.
Dont count out the Spit-14 either. While it has fairly short legs it makes up for it with an obscene climb rate and a 450 mph top speed at Alt. Nor would I hesitate to take a F4U-4 up to 30 k either.
-
The one thing I want to know is why does everyone think that all buff pilots are going to fly the B29 at 35k? I can tell you that even if I have to pay 200 perks per plane (600 for formation) then I'm only going to fly it at 20-25k as it has a decent defense. Everyone always cries that "oh no we shouldn't add that aircraft because it might fly high!". Let me ask you, how many 25-30k bombers do you encounter every night in MA that are ACTUALLY at 25+K? Another thing is this, for those of you that say the B29 should only be able to take off from Me163 fields then you can bet all B29's will be in the stratosphere. Why? If I had to fly 3 hours to get to target then I'm sure as hell going to climb as high as I can get. If the B29 were to be added as just a perk bomber that can take off from any field I doubt most of them would be seen above 25k. Most people just don't have the time or patience to fly that long or that high.
Now onto game breaking balance. The worst a B29 would be able to do is drop the hangers at a field, and guess what, if he's by himself then at best he's only going to knock out FH's for about 5 minutes because he can't hit them all in one pass. Besides the FH's the worst a B29 can do is knock down a bunch of strat, and I think most of us will agree that strat is next to worthless in it's current state.
In my opinion the B29 should be in Aces High as an ultimate perk bomber, but I will also agree that there are bombers that should be added in before it.
-
The one thing I want to know is why does everyone think that all buff pilots are going to fly the B29 at 35k? I can tell you that even if I have to pay 200 perks per plane (600 for formation) then I'm only going to fly it at 20-25k as it has a decent defense. Everyone always cries that "oh no we shouldn't add that aircraft because it might fly high!". Let me ask you, how many 25-30k bombers do you encounter every night in MA that are ACTUALLY at 25+K? Another thing is this, for those of you that say the B29 should only be able to take off from Me163 fields then you can bet all B29's will be in the stratosphere. Why? If I had to fly 3 hours to get to target then I'm sure as hell going to climb as high as I can get. If the B29 were to be added as just a perk bomber that can take off from any field I doubt most of them would be seen above 25k. Most people just don't have the time or patience to fly that long or that high.
Now onto game breaking balance. The worst a B29 would be able to do is drop the hangers at a field, and guess what, if he's by himself then at best he's only going to knock out FH's for about 5 minutes because he can't hit them all in one pass. Besides the FH's the worst a B29 can do is knock down a bunch of strat, and I think most of us will agree that strat is next to worthless in it's current state.
In my opinion the B29 should be in Aces High as an ultimate perk bomber, but I will also agree that there are bombers that should be added in before it.
I salute to that. Very good points! :salute
-
There are a few planes that are capable of catching a B29 at altitude:
1. P-47N
2. ME-262
3. ME-163
4. P-51 B&D
5. TA-152
I put the P-47N at the top of the list because that plane was specifically designed to escort the B-29. Even though it is prop-driven, it has a supercharger and is more than capable of keeping up with it. Then follows the two German jets. They both have outstanding speeds at 35k+. The P-51s may be able to stick with the B-29, as well. Lastly, the TA-152 is able to keep up with the B-29 due to its aerodynamics. Its wings are long and slender, which make it perfect for high altitudes.
TA-152 should be able to do more than just keep up with the B-29 at 35,000ft. The Ta 152H was capable of speeds up to 472mph at 41,000ft using the GM-1 boost (is this modeled in AH?).
-
There are a few planes that are capable of catching a B29 at altitude:
1. P-47N
2. ME-262
3. ME-163
4. P-51 B&D
5. TA-152
dont forget the P-38. I've got a clip of one that chased me all the way up to 37k
-
The idea is to stop the B29 from getting to those alts, hell wasn't it even impossible to bomb accurately at those alts anyway?
-
The idea is to stop the B29 from getting to those alts, hell wasn't it even impossible to bomb accurately at those alts anyway?
Yeah, pretty much and throw the Gulf Stream into the mix and you can see why LeMay had the bombers fly lower over Tokyo.
ack-ack
-
I still ask the question, why the heck would anyone try to fly beyond 40k? Boredom? Come on guys, you know most people will never fly it that high.
Also Kazaa has a point, you cannot bomb hangers or any other "single" target from high alt without dropping alot of ord on it. I know from experience that the random bomb drift will cause the bombs to separate so much that you'll have to drop 3-4 1kers just kill the hanger. You can only accurately bomb strats or towns from that height due to the dense amount of buildings.
-
Introduce the B-29 with formations, it shouldn’t cost a stupid amount of perks either. At the end of the day it’s still a bomber and as such, liable of being totally owned by the smaller and more moveable fighters.
-
I still ask the question, why the heck would anyone try to fly beyond 40k? Boredom? Come on guys, you know most people will never fly it that high.
Also Kazaa has a point, you cannot bomb hangers or any other "single" target from high alt without dropping alot of ord on it. I know from experience that the random bomb drift will cause the bombs to separate so much that you'll have to drop 3-4 1kers just kill the hanger. You can only accurately bomb strats or towns from that height due to the dense amount of buildings.
I like to bomb that high just because I can. And it is possible to drop 4 x 500lbers on hangars, as long as you can reference exactly where on the field they are (That's why I keep my bomber-binder handy). It's not easy, and not common, but it is possible.
-
I'm the same. I do B-17 runs and drop all the way from 33k sometimes. I will also say that the majority of my runs are against strats because to me, an airfield isn't exactly a target rich environment and yes, from that altitude your accuracy does diminish a little.
Another thing I have to bring up though is that even with my B-17 or B-24 flying at 30k I hardly see anyone try to stop me from making my hit. Although I have seen fighters occasionally come up to get me, it only happens about 1/8 of the missions I fly and they always reach me after I've rolled my bombs. So what I'm wondering is why are you worrying about not being able to shoot down a B-29 when hardly anybody will even try to successfully intercept a high alt bomber already in the game? I mean at least try first and then complain when you fail.
-
I have tried and I have failed, I serisouly have stalkers; That is why I fly the B26 from different bases or an A20G because I can actually kill some of my stalkers in that thing, or when I have it I will fly the Ar234. And, I am all for the B29 but even I wouldn't fly it up that high unless you had to fly it only from large airfields and you had taken 1/4 of the bases in the enemy's sector and I am a major alt monkey, even for bombers. EVEN THEN I wouldn't fly it all the time as it wouldn't be WORTH the time it takes to fly it out and back so you don't loose you perks; I would rather fly the Ar 234 multiple times as a low alt. tac. bomber.
-
Introduce the B-29 with formations, it shouldn’t cost a stupid amount of perks either. At the end of the day it’s still a bomber and as such, liable of being totally owned by the smaller and more moveable fighters.
If flown like a lancstuka.
-
i would love the b-29, currently i only fly the b-17 because i dont like the others. the B-29 isnt that much bigger than the lancaster... dont need nucs, heck, i would settle for it as a normal bomber, that has a payload of 17k (not even its max) of bombs and with all the guns installed. It could be a perk, but a low costing one. and allow formations...
-
Flight17, you might as well ask for the sun....or actually, ask for tinted windows or sun glasses, the glare kinda cheezes me off when some one shoots me down by flying with it behind them. But the point is if you want a B29 with 17k of bombs and all those guns, I personly would like it two, then the perking is liable to be in the area of the Me 262. Besides if you plink hangers with the B17 then you might want to be doing that with the B24 if you don't mind getting shot down once you drop, it has 8,000 lb of bombs which means if you set salvo to 2 instead of 3, which is still capable of landing enough hits on a hanger, you can down 4 instead of 3. if you are using it to plaster towns then try the Ju88, it is bette for area coverage in my oppinion.
-
LOL u hate people using smart tactics when shooting your bombers NEM?
-
Flight17, you might as well ask for the sun....or actually, ask for tinted windows or sun glasses, the glare kinda cheezes me off when some one shoots me down by flying with it behind them. But the point is if you want a B29 with 17k of bombs and all those guns, I personly would like it two, then the perking is liable to be in the area of the Me 262. Besides if you plink hangers with the B17 then you might want to be doing that with the B24 if you don't mind getting shot down once you drop, it has 8,000 lb of bombs which means if you set salvo to 2 instead of 3, which is still capable of landing enough hits on a hanger, you can down 4 instead of 3. if you are using it to plaster towns then try the Ju88, it is bette for area coverage in my oppinion.
dont really care for the 24... only fly it in the missions which really need me too... just the the 17's better... i can take out a whole town with the 17's with the 500 pounders. i dont carpet bomb cities (use to) but i carefully bomb it... and normally i dont die after i bomb :) only when im jumped by 3 or more... hell ill miss a bombing run to take people out then just come back around for bombing... when i first started in the ma, i didnt like the fighters, so i would take up 17's and use them as gunships (which is very fun btw) so i got pretty good at gunnery... i have a vid of me shooting down a 262 and 163 in the same mission...
-
Yeah, I use to be a die hard B-24 pilot until I started flying 17s and found out they had a higher ceiling (28k vs 35k) and I use every foot of that altitude. I am one of the pilots who has the patience for a two and a half hour flight just so I can drop at 34k, then laugh at the people who will spend another hour trying to chase down three EMPTY bombers just to either never make it to that altitude or get shot down by me.
-
Here is a rough template for some of the specs that the B-29 should have (in my opinion) if it were introduced into AH.
PERFORMANCE
Max Speed: 360 mph
Max Fuel and Range(100%): 225 minutes and roughly 750 miles in the MA
Service Ceiling: 35,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 900 ft/min Loaded, 1450 ft/min Unloaded
LOADOUT OPTIONS
Bombs: 500lbs x 40
1000lbs x 20
2000lbs x 10
4000lbs x 5
(NO NUKES!!!!!!)
Guns: .50 x 12 w/ 1750 rpg and 20mm Hispano w/ 750 rpg
IN GAME STATUS
Single Bomber: 125 points
Formation: 375
ENY Value: 10
I also think with this bomber should come a few new updates for all bombers in AH like on board radar for the B-29 or any other aircraft that was equipped with radar back then, Manual calibration of all defensive machine gun turrets in flight and last but definitely not least, operational Fire Bottles to put out the damn engine fires.
-
How can you have a plane perked 125 and eny of 10?
But if not the B-29 then how about (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/300px-B32.jpg)
-
How can you have a plane perked 125 and eny of 10?
But if not the B-29 then how about (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/300px-B32.jpg)
Because 3 saw combat?
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7961/b328.jpg)
wrongway
-
What about the Tu-4 with American markings? :rofl
-
ScottyK don't you tell me you are happy to have people shoot you down or I'll try to sic 999000 on you :t. flight17 you sound like a smart guy, so if I have this strait then you bomb town and try to precisely bomb them like hangers, (muttered) ya and some people say I'm stupid. But If you are bombing hangers I still stand by what I said.
-
Because 3 saw combat?
(http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/7961/b328.jpg)
wrongway
I thought there was a squadron and they all went on missions.
-
You can hit hangars above 33,000 feet all day and I can post film doing so. I could do it at 40k without problems too if I could get the plane that high. We are talking same ordnance dropped as someone lower too. Just line your bomb run up early and dont make many movements. Bomb dispersion isnt an issue but just add 5 mph wind above 30k. You wouldnt hit a town that high unless you are very good.
Edit: B-17@40k with 500lbers salvo 3 and took out single fighter hangar. Had to burn every ounce of fuel out and drop all but 3 bombs to maintain that alt. Used wind to get there faster but you guys are talking bomb dispersion so it shouldnt matter. Stock MA settings......
<S> Strip
-
I thought there was a squadron and they all went on missions.
Either:
One Squadron, the 386th Bomb Squadron, 312th Bomb Group, 5th Air Force got 3 of them and flew 6 missions before the end of the war.
or
B-32 COMBAT HISTORY
From "Flying Terminated Inventory", Stephen Harding, Wings, April 1993
"An August 1944 directive from the USAAF had required that a combat test be carried out before the B-32 could be introduced into service. However, the AAFPGC agency opposed both a combat test and general service introduction of the B-32, so it seemed that the Dominator would be consigned to operational limbo indefinitely. In the meantime, Lt. Gen. George C. Kenney, the commander of the Far East Air Forces, had been anxious to get B-29s but his requests had always been turned down on the grounds that the B-29s were urgently needed elsewhere. As an alternative, General Kenney started requesting B-32s instead. On March 27, General Arnold approved Kenney's request and authorized a comprehensive Dominator combat test.
Col. Frank R. Cook was appointed commander of the test detachment. Three B-32s were chosen for the combat test (42-108529, -108531 and -108532). -108531 was damaged in an accident before leaving Fort Worth, and was replaced by 42-108528. -108528 was in rather bad shape, since it had been used as a test machine at Fort Worth. The first two arrived on Luzon on May 24, with the recalcitrant -108528 not arriving until the next day. The test was to be carried out under the auspices of the 5th Bomber Command, with the 316th Bombardment Squadron of the 312th Bombardment Group as the host unit. If things worked out well, the A-20s which equipped the 312th would be replaced by B-32s.
The first combat mission took place on May 29, 1945. It was a strike against a Japanese supply depot in Luzon's Cayagan Valley. All three of the Dominators were to take part, but -108528 aborted on takeoff. The other two proceeded to the target. Unopposed bombing runs were made from an altitude of 10,000 feet, and both aircraft returned without incident. This raid was followed by a series of attacks on Japanese targets in the Philippines, in Formosa, and on Hainan Island in the Tonkin Gulf. The only opposition encountered during these missions was some rather inaccurate flak. The tests were deemed a success, and plans were made to convert the entire 386th Bombardment Squadron to B-32s. The 312th BG was scheduled to move to Okinawa as soon as the 386th conversion was completed.
Following the dropping of the atomic bombs, in August of 1945, the unit was ordered to move to Okinawa before the conversion could be carried out. Six more B-32s joined the squadron on Okinawa a few days later. Combat operations continued in spite of the de-facto cease-fire that had been called following the bombing of Nagasaki. During this time, the B-32s flew mainly photographic reconnaissance missions, most of which were unopposed. However, on August 17 a group of 4 B-32s flying over Tokyo were fired on by radar-directed flak and were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American aircraft escaped with only minor damage, claiming one confirmed fighter kill and two probables. During a reconnaissance mission over Tokyo on August 18, 42-108532 and 42-108578 were attacked by Japanese fighters. The American gunners claimed two kills and one probable, but -108578 was badly shot up and one of her crew was killed with two being injured. This was to prove to be the last combat action of World War 2.
The last Dominator mission of the war was flown by four B-32s on August 28 in a reconnaissance mission to Tokyo. The mission was a disaster, although not because of any enemy action. 42-108544 lost an engine on takeoff and skidded off the runway. All 13 men aboard perished when the aircraft exploded and burned. On the way back from the target, 42-108528 lost power on two of its four engines. The plane's pilot ordered the crew to bail out, but two men perished."
wrongway
-
How can you have a plane perked 125 and eny of 10?
But if not the B-29 then how about (http://i478.photobucket.com/albums/rr149/Rich46yo/300px-B32.jpg)
LOL B-32 was utter crap of a bomber.
ack-ack
-
For those who don not want to B-29 on AH. Give me (and other who would like it on AH) reasons why it doesn’t need to be on AH.
-
It needs to be in AH, but there are 1,242,372 things that need to be added before it
-
This is deserving of a seperate post
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
-
sigh
-
LOL. Yea it dose. But i really lost on why some ppl don't want it. Besides the atom bomb which i think should be left out.
-
OMG the POOR KITTENS!!!!
-
I'm actually for the B29..........
But whoever said yesterday that we should have a sticky for the B29 might be right. It'll at least keep the database down some. :D
-
LOL. Yea it dose. But i really lost on why some ppl don't want it. Besides the atom bomb which i think should be left out.
Screw it! I want the NOOOOOK man! :rock
-
boring :huh
-
Because AH2 needs more hanger queens. :rofl
-
OMG the POOR KITTENS!!!!
There are no more kittens, now its PUPPIES!!!! :O
-
One major issue that stands against the B-29 (and other large aircraft like the H8K2) is the sheer amount of work they entail for the artists due to their large and complex interiors. I'd guess the B-29 or H8K2 would take as much developement time as 8 to 12 single engined fighters.
-
I'd fly it if it was introduced, but won't lose any sleep if it never is. I just don't see the need for more threads about it when 'I think' HT has said it will never be in game. it has its pros and cons.
-
.... for those who haven't seen this.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/grimsfx/stugs.jpg)
-
There are no more kittens, now its PUPPIES!!!! :O
?
You must understand the I am all for the B29. But anyway we are likely not to get it because it will have even better defense than the B17's or B24's AND on top of that it has even more bombs than the lanc, heck it probably has enough bombs to level a small country like that Luxembourg place. But the fact remains that it would be an uber-bomber and as such would have be perked higher than the 262, I would even say that it should perked up in the 400 or maby in the 500 range. If one got past the forward bases during a large attack then it would level several of the best bases to counterattack from once the forward bases are captured. It would probably throw off the entire bomber v.s. fighter aspect of the game. And if YOU want to design the plane AND the interior of the plane be my guest
-
.... for those who haven't seen this.
(http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e28/grimsfx/stugs.jpg)
LOL. Flying tanks. but wherte are the sheep?
-
I'd fly it if it was introduced, but won't lose any sleep if it never is. I just don't see the need for more threads about it when 'I think' HT has said it will never be in game. it has its pros and cons.
Nobody at HTC has ever said the B-29 will never be in the game. The nuke will not be, but that is very separate from the B-29 itself.
-
Nobody at HTC has ever said the B-29 will never be in the game. The nuke will not be, but that is very separate from the B-29 itself.
I am not for the atom bomb. only two where used
-
nukes available for the end of tour
-
nukes available for the end of tour
If map wasnt won over week, B-29 & nooks becomes available at all airfields. Nooked fields dont respawn. :devil
-
If map wasnt won over week, B-29 & nooks becomes available at all airfields. Nooked fields dont respawn. :devil
Map resets every Tuesday.
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1411/nonooks.jpg)
Hanger launch only. Don't change the size of the hangers.
:rofl
wrongway
-
(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/1411/nonooks.jpg)
(http://www.sarna.net/files/incoming/forum/132792-nuke.jpg)
:t
-
B29 should be the very last plane added. And once it is added it should be around for a tour, then AH should close its doors.
Lots of stuff that would be way more fun than the b29.
-
I always smile when I hear this statement.... What does it mean though? The last plane........ Release the B29 and then HTC is going to close shop and just leave the game running? Is that right?
B29 should be the very last plane added.
-
I always smile when I hear this statement.... What does it mean though? The last plane........ Release the B29 and then HTC is going to close shop and just leave the game running? Is that right?
The last plane??? Dose he have any ideal how many species of planes that saw combat in the war. B-29 should have been added long before the Ar-234 was put on.
-
There are no more kittens, now its PUPPIES!!!! :O
Yeah, I noticed....
(http://img153.imageshack.us/img153/7123/godkillspuppysw1.jpg)
Oh, by the way...
(http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5402/nukeg.gif)
-
B29 should be the very last plane added. And once it is added it should be around for a tour, then AH should close its doors.
Lots of stuff that would be way more fun than the b29.
nope...im pretty sure b29s are pretty damn fun
-
Uh oh, someone hand me that open season license! :eek:
-
I want to see it just for its historic value and the fact that there is only one perk bomber in the game and its nothing special. So with that I think the B-29 has every right to be in this game just as much as a P-51 or Me262. And yeah it'll be better than any other bomber so far but it still won't be invincible.
-
We do need more perked bombers true and I would Like to see the b29 in ah2 but...I don't think it should have a nuke maybe lots of bombs or a 5,000lb bomb or some thing like that.
-
Yeah I agree, Loadout four the B-29 should be: 4000lbs x 5, 2000lbs x 10, 1000lbs x 20 or 500lbs x 40. No need to drop 200 100lbs on anything in the game and definitely NO NUKES!!!
Another thing, I know HTC will never put the A-bomb in the game not just because it has no business being there, but because nobody has really asked for a nuclear weapon. Everyone just keeps asking for something called a NOOK. Not sure what that stands for and I even tried to google it but whatever it is it wasn't in WWII. I know the proper abbreviation for a nuclear weapon is N-U-K-E but apparently you all are talking about something else cause... well I don't know, I just cant fathom how someone could misspell a word with only four letters. :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Three reasons why it would unbalance the game:
1) 60,000 lb of bombs for one formation.
2) 33,000+ feet altitude capability, combined with speeds of up to 355 mph.
3) One 20mm cannon and two .50 cal MGs in the tail. That means having to tail chase and close on a very fast bomber formation with double the firepower of a formation of B-24s.
Great for the Buffers, very bad for everyone else... Don't expect to see the B-29.
My regards,
Widewing
-
Good reason Widewing. But look at these:
1) despit the 234 small bomb load, it is fast (455 mph at 20k) and can pull away from most all A/C, even at high alt.
2) The lancaster carries a bomb load of 14,000 lbs. B-17 or B-24 dont come close to that.
3) 234 has two 20 mm guns on the tail too.
4) The lancasters can turn really well for a large bomber. I dont thing the b-29 have that ability to turn, not even turn better than B-24 or B-17
-
To say the B-29 would unbalance the game would be to say that the Me262 unbalances the game now. Does it?
-
B29 doesnt unbalance the game, N00KERZ unbalances the game
-
To say the B-29 would unbalance the game would be to say that the Me262 unbalances the game now. Does it?
If the B-29 is introduced without a massive perk price, that's the only heavy bomber that you will see. Every other buff will become a hanger queen.
As an example, if the F4U-4 were unperked, that's the only F4U most would fly..
My regards,
Widewing
-
Good reason Widewing. But look at these:
1) despit the 234 small bomb load, it is fast (455 mph at 20k) and can pull away from most all A/C, even at high alt.
2) The lancaster carries a bomb load of 14,000 lbs. B-17 or B-24 dont come close to that.
3) 234 has two 20 mm guns on the tail too.
4) The lancasters can turn really well for a large bomber. I dont thing the b-29 have that ability to turn, not even turn better than B-24 or B-17
You can run down a formation of Ar 234s if you have some altitude. 234s to not have the endurance to climb to high altitude, thus most are seen below 15k. The two cannon in the 234 are fixed. You have to aim the entire aircraft. They can be attacked from a few degrees high, low or off-angle with impunity.
Lancasters have the weakest guns and durability of the heavy bombers. They also have the slowest climb rate. Thus, they get less use than the B-24 and B-17. Maneuvering Heavy bombers gains you little, other than losing your drones. There's little need to maneuver a B-29 as it will be very difficult to intercept. Assuming you do intercept them, good luck facing those tail guns.
My regards,
Widewing
-
The whole point of the perk system is that you can introduce just about anything and not have it unbalance the arena. That said, I hate the idea of deciding which aircraft should be modeled based on the main arenas.
-
Alright then lets try this....
When the B-29 was operating, very little if any opposition was mounted by the Japanese. Thus, scenarios/events involving the B-29 would be rather boring. Hence, no B-29 needed for a scenario, NO B-29.
-
If the B-29 is introduced without a massive perk price, that's the only heavy bomber that you will see. Every other buff will become a hanger queen.
As an example, if the F4U-4 were unperked, that's the only F4U most would fly..
My regards,
Widewing
It would be massively, massively perked. No doubt about it.
Really, the main issue is the development resources it would cost HTC to make it. Due to that, if nothing else, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
-
It would be massively, massively perked. No doubt about it.
Really, the main issue is the development resources it would cost HTC to make it. Due to that, if nothing else, I don't see it happening anytime soon.
Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.
My regards,
Widewing
-
1. Dont allow formations.
A question what was the regular bomb load out for the B29?
-
A question what was the regular bomb load out for the B29?
20,000lb
Could be modded to carry 2x 22,000lb T-14 Earthquake bombs externally
-
LOL. Yea it dose. But i really lost on why some ppl don't want it. Besides the atom bomb which i think should be left out.
This post is one reason why I don't want it... I don't think that the b-29 "dose" (500 mg please) deserve a spot in our planeset currently, there are more important things than a giant, basically untouchable at alt., ungodly amount of ord carrying, fast, overgunned aircraft that could EASILY throw the planset outta whack.
PS: If you're gonna post supporting something, at least know 1) What you're saying 2) How to say it 3) How to spell it...
Welcome to the internet. You know, that place where "ppl" just don't know how to learn grammar?
-
Besides the programing work to put it in AH, there is still no good reason anyone has come up with to keep the B-29 out of the game. There are planes that can climb that high and still have the speed to catch it (I've got plenty of films of my B-17s at 36k being chased by various aircraft to prove it) and the only reason you should fear the 20mm gun on it is if you're stupid enough to try and attack it from behind. You'd probably get shot down doing that with any bomber in the game.
-
You can run down a formation of Ar 234s if you have some altitude. 234s to not have the endurance to climb to high altitude, thus most are seen below 15k. The two cannon in the 234 are fixed. You have to aim the entire aircraft. They can be attacked from a few degrees high, low or off-angle with impunity. Yes, some A/C may be able to catch the 234 but no diffrent than trying to get a 262. If you where to attack the 234 from a few degree high or low, wouldn't that just slow you down some?
Lancasters have the weakest guns and durability of the heavy bombers. They also have the slowest climb rate. Thus, they get less use than the B-24 and B-17. Yes, you are right about that.Maneuvering Heavy bombers gains you little, other than losing your drones. There's little need to maneuver a B-29 as it will be very difficult to intercept. Assuming you do intercept them, good luck facing those tail guns. Now your not going to just give up just because of the tail gunner? Surly you can find a while around it.
If the bird was a high perk plane like the 262, i am sure you will not see if that offten. Tell me this, because i am not sure how to find this info. Look how often the 262 and 234 in flown, how offten it is shot down and what the K/D ratio.
-
PS: If you're gonna post supporting something, at least know 1) What you're saying 2) How to say it 3) How to spell it...
Welcome to the internet. You know, that place where "ppl" just don't know how to learn grammar?
Thanks for you remarks about my spelling and grammar. I am only human and will make mistakes. That's why pencils have erasers.
-
Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.
Really? You can fly the B-29 with one of the Il-2 mods and there's no issues with gun positions that I've heard of. I'm sure that if a bunch of amateurs can code that, HTC can. That's not to say that I want to see the B-29 in AH, but the above seems like a red herring.
-
Have you ever heard of game engines? IL-2 has a completely different game-engine featuring a completely different structure of development. Meanwhile, if you look at Aces High, it could be a completely different story.
For example, One town was built in a, "square" format. Instead of simply placing structures or roads wherever it pleased them, they placed it in precise locations to ensure conservation of space. Another town of relative size decided to build wherever they felt a building would fit and simply, "built on the fly." Well, eventually both towns had a need for a new grand hotel featuring 35 stories of suites. No problem for the, "square" town. They simply demolished a neighborhood and started building. However, for the other town there were problems. Their structures were strewn all over the place to the point that they had no room to place the structure. Of course they could demolish some buildings, but it wouldn't allow the new hotel good access to main roads or government buildings. So the town had to demolish even more buildings and even had to relocate some roads before making a decent amount of room for the hotel.
While this may not be the situation with HTC, it does give you a little insight to programming in general. It's the very same hotel (feature), but one city (game engine) was better prepared to implement something new than the other city. Thus it reduced the amount of time to construct the hotel (feature) for one city while it caused nightmares for the other.
-
Goodness denholm! That's a lot of speculation without any word from HTC as to whether it would be a genuine problem or not. The gunsight for some of the CV guns is not in the same place as the guns themselves. I may not be a programmer, but it would seem that the feature required for B-29 guns is already in the game.
The remote-gun "coding problem" is just another example of the predominant obsequiousness and irrational deference that's shown toward AH, even though it stands well enough on its own.
-
20,000lb
Could be modded to carry 2x 22,000lb T-14 Earthquake bombs externally
That was post war only.
-
Goodness denholm! That's a lot of speculation without any word from HTC as to whether it would be a genuine problem or not. The gunsight for some of the CV guns is not in the same place as the guns themselves. I may not be a programmer, but it would seem that the feature required for B-29 guns is already in the game.
The periscopic gunsight can indeed be a problem. They tried to implement it for the Ar 234 long time ago, but ti didn't work. It's not so much a coding problem we do have remote controlled turrets in AH already but a graphical one - Trying to put the point of view into that small periscope resulted in clipping errors. Of course it's all specualtion about how difficult that would be the fix - but after all those years, we still don't have the periscopic gunsight for the 234 ;)
-
234s to not have the endurance to climb to high altitude, thus most are seen below 15k.
I'm more inclined to say: the 234's pilot don't have the endurance to climb above 15K ;)
Taking off in a Ar 234 with 3x500kg bombs and rear guns, you have about 36mins of fuel left (at the moment you reach autoclimb speed). But if you now use autoclimb, you will reach 15k after about 14 minutes - and have 40(!)mins of endurance left. When you reach 20k after 22 mins total, it's still 38mins. So climbing climbing to that altitude is basically "for free" (and you will have covered 5-6 sectors during that climb)
Climbing past 20-22k however, is not advisable due to the anaemic climb rate at that altitudes.
-
Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.
My regards,
Widewing
I don't know about this... We sorta already have remotely sighted and fired guns. Think about the other guns that fire when you are in a position. If anything, this would actually help nerf the B-29 a bit, as you would have to wait until enemy is at the convergence range of the remotely operated guns.
*can't believe I actually defended this topic... I ban myself from this topic*
-
That was post war only.
No, actually that WAS its loadout in WWII
-
I don't know about this... We sorta already have remotely sighted and fired guns. Think about the other guns that fire when you are in a position. If anything, this would actually help nerf the B-29 a bit, as you would have to wait until enemy is at the convergence range of the remotely operated guns.
*can't believe I actually defended this topic... I ban myself from this topic*
How about this, because I thought the same thing? Not only were they remote controlled but they also used a Lead Computing Sight.
Not only are you pointing the guns from a remote spot but you also have the green + to show you where to shoot.
With the revolutionary Central Fire Control System (CFCS), the B-29 had four remote controlled turrets, each armed with two .50 cal M2/AN machine guns. Four gunners were able to control these turrets with the use of four General Electric made analog computers, one above the Norden bombsight in the nose and three in a pressurized compartment in the rear fuselage which incorporated clear blown sighting blisters. The gunner manning the sight in the upper rear station was the "Central Fire Control gunner" whose job was to allocate turrets to each of the other three gunners, avoiding confusion in the heat of battle. The CFCS had (at that time) a highly advanced analog computer which corrected for the B-29's airspeed, the target's speed, target lead, gravity, temperature, barrel wear, and humidity. Because of this, the .50 caliber machine guns of the B-29 had a maximum effective range of 1,000 yards (910 m), double the range of the manually-aimed machine guns of the B-17 Flying Fortress. The tail gunner could only control his own weapons (two M2/AN Brownings plus, in early production B-29s, a 20 mm M2 cannon) and the lower rear turret.
No LCS. No B-29.
Oki Doki?
No, actually that WAS its loadout in WWII
If you're talking about the Tallboy, never used in combat and only possible from a modified bomb bay.
wrongway
-
No, actually that WAS its loadout in WWII
I've never seen anything mentioning the two 22,000lbers except in post war British service as the Washington.
-
Goodness denholm! That's a lot of speculation without any word from HTC as to whether it would be a genuine problem or not. The gunsight for some of the CV guns is not in the same place as the guns themselves. I may not be a programmer, but it would seem that the feature required for B-29 guns is already in the game.
The remote-gun "coding problem" is just another example of the predominant obsequiousness and irrational deference that's shown toward AH, even though it stands well enough on its own.
I think you missed this part which was the clue that this had nothing to do with Aces High or HTC but programming in general:
...While this may not be the situation with HTC, it does give you a little insight to programming in general...
I was pointing out that things aren't always as simple as they may seem.
-
...While this may not be the situation with HTC, it does give you a little insight to programming in general...
I prefer to stay on topic rather than replying to smoke screens.
-
So you refuse to accept that just because one person can do something not everyone else can or will do the same thing?
-
So you refuse to accept that just because one person can do something not everyone else can or will do the same thing?
That's an oversimplification. I couldn't even program "pong" unless I studied up on programing languages. But, yes, I believe it's within HTC's ability to model an aircraft with guns like the B-29 because they exist in a flight sim that is "inferior" according to the AH community. If Il-2 had a 234 with a periscope sight then I would be more suspicious of AH not having it, but they don't.
Not expecting HTC to improve this game and to meet the standards set by other games of the genre is counterproductive and silly. AH is not the alpha and omega of flight sims.
-
I've never seen anything mentioning the two 22,000lbers except in post war British service as the Washington.
Ok' well hows this?
General characteristics
Crew: 11: (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot). bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 ft² (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (142,000 lb on record))
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km)
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nm, 9,000 km)
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/ft² (337 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament
Guns:
10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
I understand the T-14s were only for modified versions of the B-29 and I don't expect them to be in the game but five 4000lbs will do the job for me.
-
Ok....I realize what I'm about to say is a waste of pixels as the B29 is just a dream right now, BUT if I had to use the current system to model remote guns on the B29 this is how I would do it.
I would create the gun "windows" where the gunners looked out to aim and make them man-able positions like 2-4. I would give these positions the proper gunsites but they would not have any gun to fire, it would be like a AA gun on tanks after it's shot out, you can move and aim but not shoot. Next I would make the 4 remote turrets and make them positions 5-8, but they would not have any gunsites, instead when you goto these positions it would just be a black box in the turret. Now how the system would work is you goto the gunners positions and use the "fire all" command to bring the turrets to bare and fire. Now the downside to this system I made up is that you cannot fire a single turret (besides the tail gun) you have to fire everything or nothing.
-
Here is a rough template for some of the specs that the B-29 should have (in my opinion) if it were introduced into AH.
PERFORMANCE
Max Speed: 360 mph
Max Fuel and Range(100%): 225 minutes and roughly 650 miles in the MA
Service Ceiling: 35,000 ft
Rate of Climb: 900 ft/min Loaded, 1450 ft/min Unloaded
LOADOUT OPTIONS
Bombs: 500lbs x 40
1000lbs x 20
2000lbs x 10
4000lbs x 5
(NO NUKES!!!!!!)
Guns: .50 x 12 w/ 1750 rpg and 20mm Hispano w/ 750 rpg
IN GAME STATUS
Single Bomber: 125 points
Formation: 375
ENY Value: 7
I also think with this bomber should come a few new updates for all bombers in AH like on board radar for the B-29 or any other aircraft that was equipped with radar back then, Manual calibration of all defensive machine gun turrets in flight and last but definitely not least, operational Fire Bottles to put out the damn engine fires.
-
Ok' well hows this?
Useless.
It has no dates and no sourcing.
-
I don't think it should be added. EVEN if it is perked, the B-29 was capiable of carrying 20,000lbs of bombs for a single plane! so when you count in the 2 drones thats 60,000 pounds of explosives. unless they changed it i believe that is more then enough to take out a HQ. I can see many quiting because of this and the fact that 1 set of bombers could aniliate a airfield and town by them self.
Also how would the radar controlled guns be displayed?
-
So how many dead kittens does that make??? Im runnin outta kittens :rolleyes:
(http://i220.photobucket.com/albums/dd45/smokey23_photos/images-1.jpg)
-
I don't think it should be added. EVEN if it is perked, the B-29 was capiable of carrying 20,000lbs of bombs for a single plane! so when you count in the 2 drones thats 60,000 pounds of explosives. unless they changed it i believe that is more then enough to take out a HQ. I can see many quiting because of this and the fact that 1 set of bombers could aniliate a airfield and town by them self.
Two things.
1. A set of heavies can already take down the town by them self if they aim.
2. On almost every map we have the HQ has a GV spawn close to it or an airfield only a few miles away. I know whenever the HQ gets taken down when I'm on everyone ups M3's / C47s like crazy and supplies the thing. Most of the time HQ will be repaired before the bombers that took it down get 50 miles away.
-
Does this mean we can get fat boy or lil man?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/959976/b29_hiroshima/
-
Does this mean we can get fat boy or lil man?
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/959976/b29_hiroshima/
NO
-
I was only joking.......Southern sense of humor
-
I figured I'd be the A#%hole to bring this one back from the grave so that we now have TWO current threads for the B-29 on the front page of the wishlist forum. May the mercyless slaughter of innocent kittens continue..... :t :t :t
-
at least no one is asking for the B-36 yet......... oops
-
at least no one is asking for the B-36 yet......... oops
You're right, because it didn't see service in WWII.
-
I understand that, or else the war would have been over in two weeks had it been put into service on time.
-
I dont know about you guys but I love upping a 163. The b29 heading to a hq would be awesome for that
-
I dont know about you guys but I love upping a 163. The b29 heading to a hq would be awesome for that
Yes, yes it will.
-
I seriously don't understand why more fighter pilots don't jump on board with the B29? I mean like phatzo said, I'm sure people will love upping a 60 perkish Me163 to blow up a few B29s that cost 2-3 times as much AND that had to most likely fly over an hour to get there. I mean you wanna grief bomber pilots then thats the way to do it. :D
-
I seriously don't understand why more fighter pilots don't jump on board with the B29? I mean like phatzo said, I'm sure people will love upping a 60 perkish Me163 to blow up a few B29s that cost 2-3 times as much AND that had to most likely fly over an hour to get there. I mean you wanna grief bomber pilots then thats the way to do it. :D
Maybe some people want to.
-
I don't even think you'd need a 163 to do it either. I've seen P-51s, 109s, spits, p-38s, la-7s and a bunch of other fighters that I cant recall the names of, chasing my B-17s all the way up to 37,000 feet. If they coordinated their attacks at that altitude some of them may have succeeded in actually shooting me down.
-
You've never seen an La-7 at +32k.......... Just saying. Might as well have said you saw a 262 up there.
I don't even think you'd need a 163 to do it either. I've seen P-51s, 109s, spits, p-38s, la-7s and a bunch of other fighters that I cant recall the names of, chasing my B-17s all the way up to 37,000 feet. If they coordinated their attacks at that altitude some of them may have succeeded in actually shooting me down.
-
If someone can tell me how to post videos from AH filmviewer, I'll show you the tape. I didn't say he successfully intercepted me, only that he tried.
-
We have a Film's and Screenshots forum you know.......... There may only be 1000 different threads that can help you..........
If someone can tell me how to post videos from AH filmviewer, I'll show you the tape. I didn't say he successfully intercepted me, only that he tried.
And that addition...... Now that does make sense. I've been up there trying to fly that large engine and it just chokes for sure....... :salute
-
I want to see it just for its historic value and the fact that there is only one perk bomber in the game and its nothing special. So with that I think the B-29 has every right to be in this game just as much as a P-51 or Me262. And yeah it'll be better than any other bomber so far but it still won't be invincible.
You're right, it'll only be untouchable... Its ceiling is way beyond any fighter.
-FYB
-
you're right. I just looked at the clip and it was a Yak, not an La (still Russian) and he only got up to about 32.5k before turning back (probably cause he couldn't climb that high either)
and Last I checked their are still at least 6 Fighters that I know of that can make that alt, The main candidate being the Ta-152 since that's what it was built for.
-
The main problem with using the Ta 152 as an interceptor is that its radiator goes out if you sneeze in the wrong direction in the cockpit.
-
It can climb to 41k, still hold about 380mph and it has enough firepower to take down a bomber of that size. If you attack smartly with it instead of just flying up into the bomber's six then you should be alright or else if you take a hit from the 20mm tail gun, your radiator is probably gonna be the last thing on your mind.
-
... and Last I checked their are still at least 6 Fighters that I know of that can make that alt, The main candidate being the Ta-152 since that's what it was built for.
Did you ever fought above 20k once? Not to mention 20k alt bomber interception.
I would like to see film with last one if you did.
-
Did you ever fought above 20k once? Not to mention 20k alt bomber interception.
I would like to see film with last one if you did.
Again, I've tried youtube, Microsoft movie player and even tried E-mailing the clips to a squad mat but still can't get them to play out side of the film viewer. It keeps saying the file is corrupt or something and never loads right. I did look at the film and screenshot forum and someone suggested I download something called FRAPS but if anyone else has any other ideas please let me know cause I'm dying to get some of this stuff up.
So far the highest shoot down I've managed was at 36.8k on a P-38 flown by "Traveler" from the Knights. Fitting name, he followed me for about an hour till I waxed him.
-
That's because the .ahf files are special files that allow tons more data to be shared than any kind of actual video file.
You just upload them to a file hosting site (mediafire or what have you) and allow others to download and play with the viewer.
-
Thanx motherland, I'm a little stupid when it comes to computer stuff so if you don't mind, how do I go about doing that.
-
Go to mediafire.com and click on the button that says 'Upload Files to MediaFire'. From there you can either create an account or upload without an account. Once it's finished uploading you just take the link it gives you and post it where ever.
-
Thanks, Here it is. I hope it loads for you guys.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/5zuwiqkazld/B-17 raid and possibly highest shoot down ever!!!.ahf
I'll have more up soon.
-
I never seen a A/C take so many hits like that. I engage a bomber raid on our HQ by B-24 and P-47N escort. They range 32 to 36k and was surprise how well the P-47 handle that high.
-
I'm surprised the poor sucker never even got a shot on me! I mean if your gonna take all that time to climb up there at least try to make it worth the trip.
But yeah, as I keep saying there are quite a few aircraft that are still very combat effective even at "untouchable" altitudes. I've already posted earlier on this site the stats for the B-29 including its altitude which depending on the source ranges from 33k to 36k and I hope that this film proves that even ABOVE that claimed altitude, intercepting a bomber is still very possible with proper planning and teamwork. But I'm pretty sure someones gonna be chiming in within ten minutes to say otherwise.
oh, and oleg, I've got about 20 other films of me flying well above 20k. Would you like me to post all of them or are you satisfied with this one?
-
Ok, I propose a trade. No one is to ask for the B-29 ever again! and in exchange, we get one of these.....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/B-29_and_B-36.jpg
No formations needed.
:rock :lol
-
oh, and oleg, I've got about 20 other films of me flying well above 20k. Would you like me to post all of them or are you satisfied with this one?
Dude, I mean you flying fighter not bomber, you intercepting bombers above 20k not somebody else intercepting your bombers. :rolleyes:
Thought it was quite obvious, sorry if not.
-
Ok, I propose a trade. No one is to ask for the B-29 ever again! and in exchange, we get one of these.....
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fd/B-29_and_B-36.jpg
No formations needed.
:rock :lol
WOW that thing is really huge when comparing to a B-29
-
Just to make sure everyone understands, that last one was a joke. I just wanted everyone to see a REAL untouchable bomber (470mph at 50k with a range of 6,000 miles holding 18 20mm cannons for turrets and 80,000lbs of bombs!)
-
Just to make sure everyone understands, that last one was a joke. I just wanted everyone to see a REAL untouchable bomber (470mph at 50k with a range of 6,000 miles holding 18 20mm cannons for turrets and 80,000lbs of bombs!)
yea, we all SHOULD know that.
-
I honestly don't think it even has anything to do with the B-29s stats anymore. I think most of the people opposed to it are just fighter jocks and furballers who are used to picking off low and slow lancs and just want bombers in general to stay easy kills for them. Anybody who is any good at intercepting a bomber (although I've only had one person ever manage to shoot me down above 34k) would have almost no problem with adding more buffs to the game but it seems that anytime someone mentions another heavy (B-29, He-177, Pe-8) all you get is static for it.
-
Remember, the Enola Gay and sister plane needed some massive modifications in order to carry their fateful loads, so the "BUT N00K WILL UNB@L@NZ GAEM" argument is moot.
-
I do agree with the NO NUKES stance. They have absolutly no place in this game and would just turn AH into a nuclear war zone.
-
I honestly don't think it even has anything to do with the B-29s stats anymore. I think most of the people opposed to it are just fighter jocks and furballers who are used to picking off low and slow lancs and just want bombers in general to stay easy kills for them. Anybody who is any good at intercepting a bomber (although I've only had one person ever manage to shoot me down above 34k) would have almost no problem with adding more buffs to the game but it seems that anytime someone mentions another heavy (B-29, He-177, Pe-8) all you get is static for it.
+1
-
We'll give you your own arena with many strat targets. For B29s only!
You can bomb until your hearts are content!
-
We'll give you your own arena with many strat targets. For B29s only!
You can bomb until your hearts are content!
All because you're too afraid to intercept a bomber flying above 15k?
Sure, when its a lanc at 2k nobody has a problem with it but god forbid a B-17 climbs to 25k on a realistic bomber mission and you have to actually do some work to get him. I believe there is a fitting term for this that I've posted in another thread already....
S implifying
K ills by
I mplementing
R ookie
T actics
So whats it gonna be. Do you truly know what you're doing or are you just complaining to try and keep it easier for yourself?
-
All because you're too afraid to intercept a bomber flying above 15k?
I still wait for film with you intercepting high alt bombers :huh
-
I still wait for film with you intercepting high alt bombers :huh
With what, my B-17? In case you haven't picked up on it yet I fly almost exclusively bombers in the MA so I've never had to intercept one. I can show you films like the last one of people climbing to my alt to intercept me which proves it can be done if you're willing to take the time and can plan a decent attack.
-
Another thing I've noticed is aside from myself, I've never even heard of any other buff pilot climbing to the same altitudes I tend to fly at over an average mission. I'm sure there must be a few out there that will go up to at least 25k but I've never seen anyone else do it before so actually finding a high alt. bomber to intercept I imagine would be pretty rare.
-
In case you haven't picked up on it yet I fly almost exclusively bombers in the MA so I've never had to intercept one.
I dont surprised at all, you are too afraid to intercept a bombers :lol And seems you like to be on easy side of coin. Its fine, just stop talking how easy and how fun something you never did itself.
-
And seems you like to be on easy side of coin. Its fine, just stop talking how easy and how fun something you never did itself.
It's OK if it only effects other people.......(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Sarge/Whatever_anim.gif)
If we get a B-29 it should be tracked from takeoff to give fighters time to climb to 30K in time for an intercept (Ground observers, Radar, ect.)
Should somebody be inclined to use that much time to intercept. After all climbing that high and loitering in case a B-29 happens by would be boring in the extreme.
-
I dont surprised at all, you are too afraid to intercept a bombers :lol And seems you like to be on easy side of coin. Its fine, just stop talking how easy and how fun something you never did itself.
How about this, grab a B-17, climb up to 33k and then tell me where your going and I'll shoot you down cause like I said I'm the only one I know of that flies buffs above 35k, therefore being the closest comparison to the B-29's capabilities the game has so far. I can show you a clip of me flying a Ta-152 up to 40,000 feet and setting up mock attacks on an imaginary bomber flight if that helps.
-
B-17
-----
13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Maximum speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h)
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Range: 2,000 mi
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
B-29
-----
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km)
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to
externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Difference
---------
12,000 lbs of ord (not counting the T-14 "Earthquake"). - B-29
70 mph faster - B-29
Guns - B-29 (Same number of guns, but 20mm tailgun packs a punch).
1,250mi Range difference - B-29
Why I don't want to see it.
--------------------------
A plane at ~35k going 357 mph with our planeset is going to be INCREDIBLY difficult to catch.(the lala has a max speed of 423 on the deck...)
Bombload. 20,000 lbs of bombs? That's MORE than enough to level a field, with or without t3h n00k.
-
It's OK if it only effects other people.......(http://www.clicksmilies.com/s1106/spezial/Sarge/Whatever_anim.gif)
If we get a B-29 it should be tracked from takeoff to give fighters time to climb to 30K in time for an intercept (Ground observers, Radar, ect.)
Oh yeah, good idea. Sounds kind of like..... well uhh.... oh yeah, a DAR BAR!
-
Oh yeah, good idea. Sounds kind of like..... well uhh.... oh yeah, a DAR BAR!
Dar bar gives limited info saying, "There's this many more cons in this sector than friendlies." Not "Oh, there's a b-29 at 33k, a P-40 on the deck, oh, and hey, another spitty at 4k."
-
If your going to fly a B-29 all the way up to it's max alt then your need a hobby.
-
Dar bar gives limited info saying, "There's this many more cons in this sector than friendlies." Not "Oh, there's a b-29 at 33k, a P-40 on the deck, oh, and hey, another spitty at 4k."
So what you're asking for is to see a little red dot with "B-29" over it on the map? Sounds like HTC would be all for that seeing as how nobody had anything anywhere near that kind of ability at all during WWII. Here's a hint. If you see an enemy dar bar 100 miles within the enemy's territory, its probably a bomber going to altitude. (and if its the rooks you're looking at then its probably me :aok)
-
If your going to fly a B-29 all the way up to it's max alt then your need a hobby.
thats why most people don't. If the bomber does get in AH most will just fly em' the way you see lanc attacks now and it probably won't even be half as bad as you all are making it out to be.
-
Castle, the B29 would take something like a whole update's worth of development man-hours (i.e. half a dozen planes/remodels' worth).
-
And so far that's the only legitimate difficulty I can find with the B-29 is the programming stuff to add it in. Everything else just sounds like people pussing out of ever having to fight it.
-
The B-29 would be boku fun for the B-29 driver (after an hour and a half climbout AFK). How many noble fools would spend an hour climbing and chasing that black dot in the ionosphere? I am in favor of the plane but there has to be a concession made to competition: wind. Implement a jet stream at 25k and above. That way, the B-29 can be caught at bomb altitude, but could still hide in outer space before or after the drop. Otherwise it will be the "Battle of the Griefers" at 35k, porking and dropping fighter hangars with relative impunity.
-
What if you got something like 20 fighter perks for shooting her down? That should be some incentive.
-
Short film showing me in a Ta152 at 36k (B-29,s altitude) going 400mph (faster that B-29's max speed.)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/gmmgyjgrizm/TA152 SPEED.ahf
Yeah, I know, you all are still gonna whine about something right?
-
How about this, grab a B-17, climb up to 33k and then tell me where your going and I'll shoot you down cause like I said I'm the only one I know of that flies buffs above 35k
I'll die from utter boredom far before I reach 30k :lol And no, I not gonna help you with that task, find another way to learn it. I have a life after all ;)
-
Short film showing me in a Ta152 at 36k (B-29,s altitude) going 400mph (faster that B-29's max speed.)
http://www.mediafire.com/file/gmmgyjgrizm/TA152 SPEED.ahf
Yeah, I know, you all are still gonna whine about something right?
The link doesn't work.
:D
-
thats why most people don't. If the bomber does get in AH most will just fly em' the way you see lanc attacks now and it probably won't even be half as bad as you all are making it out to be.
No mate, I'm a primary bomber pilot for the rooks. The b-24's the best bomber in game, hands down. ;)
I just think that the b-29 has more than enough potential to disrupt gameplay, especially with 20,000 lbs of ord standard...
I love getting high before I raid, I perfer to make it back home. ;) Although I usually will cap out at about 20k cause a flight with no holes is no fun imo. :D
But if I paid, oh, say 200 perks for the b-29, I'd be getting her up to alt and making sure she came home.
-
Ah, tigger2, so you are a rook, then you are our sworn enemies. At least you and I have something in common we are both bomber junkies :D!!! Well, anyway, it all depends on what you mean by best. If you mean bomb load then lank is best, if you mean biggest bomb load for plane that an oscar isn't a terrible threat to then B24 is the best. If you mean most survivability during flight then the Ar234 is best if you can handle it (almost no one can catch it) or if you mean best combonation of bomb load and survivabilty then the A20-G or the B26 is best. it all depends on what you call best. Personly I fly the B26 as it always sees me through the worst. And that is the reason your team will never defeat the Bish Empire :devil.
:salute
-
So what you're asking for is to see a little red dot with "B-29" over it on the map?
Yep. You want a super airplane. Others want a way to shoot down. Dar bar means a Stuka or C-47 or anything else. The only thing that can get from the ground to the operating altitude of a B-29, and catch it, is the Komet. Unless you have more than a least a sector warning it would be impervious. Unless you are going to fly it at 10K or so. Is anybody going to do that at 200 perkies a pop?
-
If you put a red dot on the map to mark B29's I guarantee it'll end up being a hanger queen. Why? Because everyone will know what it is, and alot of people will up to shoot it down, and most likely a lone formation would never make it to target. Whenever these large buff missions appear on radar everyone and their mother usually ups and intercepts it. Most of the time few of the buffs survive to make it home. Now even though the B29 would have alot of defensive firepower, all it takes is a fire on 1 engine or fuel tank and boom there goes 200 perks.
You people keep talking about this game breaking balance yet I don't see how a few formations of B29s bombing a base would be any different than a few formations of B24's, B17's or Lancs bombing the base.
-
Too right beef.
I probably haven't mentioned this yet but I'm with the CLAIM JUMPERS. For those unfamiliar with the group, its a base taking squad of more than 100 members with no real preference to a specific set of tactics or aircraft. With that said I could probably dial up around 12 of my squad mates on an average night and put together a bombing mission consisting of 36 B-17s ( that's 216,000 lbs of bombs!). I'm assuming most of us are in squads and probably have the same capability to run such a sortie. Point is, nothing in the game requires that much firepower, yet we can do it anyway. Its almost pointless do drive up to 34k to drop but if you feel like it, it can be done in a B-17. You all are afraid of the capabilities the B-29 has and fail to understand that these capabilities already exist in the game and do get used!
Here is another thing I'm pretty sure I've already brought up. For all the complaining you guys have been doing about having to shoot down a high alt bomber, has anyone in here even tried it? I think oleg was talking something about it not too long ago and I'm not even sure he's done it himself.
-
Here is another thing I'm pretty sure I've already brought up. For all the complaining you guys have been doing about having to shoot down a high alt bomber, has anyone in here even tried it? I think oleg was talking something about it not too long ago and I'm not even sure he's done it himself.
I do it (or try to) plenty. Intercepting buffs above ~10K is a hair raising process as it is, which gets exponentially more unpleasant the higher you go. I really don't like to engage bombers at all above 15K unless I'm in an Fw 190A-8 or Bf 109 w/ gondolas, except for in the head on attack. My gunnery on aircraft that are traveling at ~300 mph perpendicular of my flight path of ~400 mph is simply poor, much poorer than the buff gunner much of the time.
Even in FSO, where we'll get set up with a ~5k altitude advantage at 30k or whatever, I'd rather engage the escorts than the bomber stream.
-
But its not impossible, right?
-
I will tell you how beefcake, well only if they allow it to carry it's actual bomb load and don't make an exception to the rules because it would make for an uber-pwnr bomber. First off, as you said, it will have a lot of defensive firepower meaning more will make it through. Second, it will have a massive bombload, meaning it will be able to level multiple fields; once it does a whole horde will follow it in to mop up fighters to up it, and after that.....(AA gunner) hey look...C47's. But the real reason (I think) most people are afraid of is if HTC perks it low enough then more people will take it out and add to the already volumous amount of crap (bombs, buring wreckage, and corpses from the shot down bomber) falling on their heads from you guys that has them scared to go out without aircover or at least wirbles, but that dosen't mean the won't just they don't like it. And I do attack buffs whenever I see a chance that dosen't take me more than 10 minutes to catch up as long as it is heading toward OUR bases instead of back to their own.
-
If it does end up in the game its probably gonna be perked on the same level as a 262 (at least I hope so) so while I could imagine there being an initial wave of "superstukas" and other NOE B-29 missions by people who have been itching to get rid of some 8,000 bomber perks, after that it should be used more realistically, and seldomly (not even sure that's a word) due to its high price.
-
Castle, I don't honestly care either way if it gets in the game or not, I would like it but I do not really care. But again I think it is that initial wave people are afraid of, as it will mean the game will get tougher for a little bit, at least for the fighter guys as they will have to fly from futhrer back then most would ever do normally.
-
Yeah but you've gotta figure most of that wave would be below 10k and so far I haven't seen too many people having trouble intercepting buffs at that alt. I'm thinking it'd be a picnic for fighter pilots too.
-
OK, not that this'l help or hurt my case at all but seeing as how high alt interception is one of the topics here, I couldn't help but throw this one in for a little comic relief. Hopefully I don't get thrown off the forum for it.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/bty5kmziitt/Red420 is my biatch.ahf
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
"I know loosing's never fun so here's something to lighten up your spirits" Beautiful!
oh yea, first post. woot woot!
-
?
You must understand the I am all for the B29. But anyway we are likely not to get it because it will have even better defense than the B17's or B24's AND on top of that it has even more bombs than the lanc, heck it probably has enough bombs to level a small country like that Luxembourg place. But the fact remains that it would be an uber-bomber and as such would have be perked higher than the 262, I would even say that it should perked up in the 400 or maby in the 500 range. If one got past the forward bases during a large attack then it would level several of the best bases to counterattack from once the forward bases are captured. It would probably throw off the entire bomber v.s. fighter aspect of the game. And if YOU want to design the plane AND the interior of the plane be my guest
If we're so likely to get it, how come HTC hasn't added it in the 10 years they've been modeling planes, and terrain, and the game?
-
But its not impossible, right?
Sure, its possible :lol Shooting down Me262 with A6M2 is possible too :rock
-
thats another thing I dont get about all of you. You look at the B-29 with so much hate for being an "untouchable plane" and nobody ever mentions the 262. Why is that, oh yeah, cause all of you use em'.
-
that's another thing I don't get about all of you. You look at the B-29 with so much hate for being an "untouchable plane" and nobody ever mentions the 262. Why is that, oh yeah, cause all of you use em'.
I don't hate the B-29, it simply represents the beginning of the new Era of atomic weaponry and the death of the last one. It only served in one theatre and as an American aircraft you'd like to have seen it in both theatres.
Model it, sure, but only after the other planesets are fleshed out. I don't mind seeing it as like one of the last 5 planes modeled, maybe sooner, but I think the German Iron guys need a few planes first, the Russkis and Itais and Japanese do, and the Wellington's a bare minimum for the Brits.
I'd also like to see some floatplanes first.
Ground pounders might want a few as well before we model the beast.
So make it, it is killable, but make it later. Also, accuracy of drops sucked up high, so that has to be modeled in as well. Far more killable down low. I think I'd model the Jap interceptors first, at least.
-
thats another thing I dont get about all of you. You look at the B-29 with so much hate for being an "untouchable plane" and nobody ever mentions the 262. Why is that, oh yeah, cause all of you use em'.
Sour grapes.
-
I honestly think we should start a thread to have an unofficial vote on who wants what plane. I mean I understand where your comming from and totally agree with it, but I also think it would be mesed up to give the majority of the game aircraft they didnt want in the first place. So what do you all think, wanna ask the people?
-
I honestly think we should start a thread to have an unofficial vote on who wants what plane. I mean I understand where your comming from and totally agree with it, but I also think it would be mesed up to give the majority of the game aircraft they didnt want in the first place. So what do you all think, wanna ask the people?
Lead the charge, I'll be the one drinking beer and eating popcorn.
-
I honestly think we should start a thread to have an unofficial vote on who wants what plane. I mean I understand where your coming from and totally agree with it, but I also think it would be messed up to give the majority of the game aircraft they didn't want in the first place. So what do you all think, wanna ask the people?
Sure, it's been done in the past, that's why the Buffalo is there. But it's still HiTech's call and historicity and overall gameplay being affected will weight any decision as well.
Consequently, if 30% say B-29, 28% say Ki-44, and 22% say He-111, don't be surprised if a Heinkel shows up in a screen shot.
-
thats another thing I dont get about all of you. You look at the B-29 with so much hate for being an "untouchable plane" and nobody ever mentions the 262. Why is that, oh yeah, cause all of you use em'.
I don't use the 262.
-
But its not impossible, right?
Of course it's possible, anything's possible. I've shot down an Me 262 in a Bf 109E before.
-
Heh I shot down an over zealous 262 pilot using my lowly B25C turret. :D
-
Yeah but you've gotta figure most of that wave would be below 10k and so far I haven't seen too many people having trouble intercepting buffs at that alt. I'm thinking it'd be a picnic for fighter pilots too.
Oh you better belive it. that is one of the reasons I don't really care in stead of leaning toward not wanting it, we would all get so many kill we would be set with the 262 for life as the points you get from it should be one of if not the highest number of all vehicles in the game. Wait...what was that SHHHhh. I think the bomber pilots that will fly that wave are listening they might know enough to fly it above 10K or maby even 20K :noid. Hey just saying, the guys we are talking about might pick up on this, not likely but possible.
-
For those who don not want to B-29 on AH. Give me (and other who would like it on AH) reasons why it doesn’t need to be on AH.
Because it would replace the Lanc as the prefered dive-bomber. Poor Lancs, relegated to Hanger Queen status! Oh the ignominity of it all!
-
Because it would replace the Lanc as the prefered dive-bomber. Poor Lancs, relegated to Hanger Queen status! Oh the ignominity of it all!
Yeah, only if people want to blow alot of perks to use it like that.
-
Yeah, only if people want to blow alot of perks to use it like that.
Well atleast we will have something to spend our perks on that might die. Everytime I up a set of 234s, I come home with more perks; thus I will never run-out until we have something silly-yet-fun like the B-29.
And there will be ppl that won't care if they blow perks using it that way. Give us toy for the game & we will toy with the game. :devil
-
This is true vonKrimm, I have this uncanny ability 234s as an NOE anti shipping role and somehow survive the fleet ack to make it home. And yes I also will admit I'll be one of the first to up a B29 and dive bomb a lone panzer just for the heck of it. :D
-
Yup, bring in the B29. Perk it heavy. Let's see, ~6600ft runways, ~8000ft take off run needed to lift that puppy off the ground with a load any heavier than a pilot in his nicks with a baloney sandwitch tucked in them for later. Yup, that'll work.
-
more like load her up and take off from any runway having a cliff at the end, if thats even necesarry at all.
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
Overlord you NEED to learn some restraint untill you have made AT LEAST 75 posts that are well thought out, constructive, positive, non offensive, and commented positively on by respected members (not sure if I count probably I don't, you should probably go with nickle at least, maby silver).
-
Kid will learn soon enough.... But looking through posts thus far, I'd say it's a young kid done with highschool, perhaps grammar school, almost done with their 2 weeks. Then again, forgive me if I have insulted you overlord!
Overlord you NEED to learn some restraint untill you have made AT LEAST 75 posts that are well thought out, constructive, positive, non offensive, and commented positively on by respected members (not sure if I count probably I don't, you should probably go with nickle at least, maby silver).
And why don't we just sticky this?
-
Or could be some dude in his mid 40s going through his mid-life crisis. Though I'm not gonna rag on him too much cause he kind of had a point although I would have put it another way.
-
I agree with his point, just not the manner in which he conveyed it.
-
See Rules #4, #6
-
wow, ornery little bastard aint he?
Anyway, I'm sure the B-29 would be modled to use the runways already in the game. As it is, even with a fully loaded lanc you can still get off the ground using a little under 2/3 of the runway through the use of flaps. I don't really know all the details about the terrain update coming up but they may even have thought of this issue and encorperated it into the new maps. So if we get a bunch of maps with longer than usual runways, It could be a sign.... :pray
-
Anyway, I'm sure the B-29 would be modled to use the runways already in the game.
Central most or closest to edge of map base in center for each nation could be a massive bomber base upping 29s, Lancs, etc., how about that?
-
Sounds good to me. That or just remodel the three 163 bases with 10,000 foot runways if like I said, its even necessary. That way you could at least predict where the bombers would be coming from.
-
yeah, or they can just make some of the mountain top bases at 33.5k or above special bomber fields. That way you can still target them specifically to knock out the bombers and it reduces the time to climb if your flying one.
-
oh hell why hold back.if your ganna ask for a big boy toyto fly........go bigger the biggest piston engine bomber ever......
THE B-36 J PEACE MAKER.
(http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj110/GrnEagle43DHBG/B36_FSX1.jpg)
(http://i270.p[IMG]http://i270.photobucket.com/albums/jj110/GrnEagle43DHBG/xb36_b29.jpg)hotobucket.com/albums/jj110/GrnEagle43DHBG/b36_large.jpg[/IMG] B-29 SMALL---B-36 BIG..
-
Pull your effing heads out of your rectal orifices. B-29s were responsible for decimating a large portion of Japan, and that was well before the nukes were ever used. Try researching something before you fill a thread up with idiotic posts about nuclear weapons, it's ridiculous.
-
See? Now that makes SENSE. Not just a bunch of rhetoric. Thank you! I'd love to hear more! :salute
Id gladly give up one of my B25 models for the B29 :rofl
Differing models of the same aircraft take much less work. The B-29A would take more dev work than any unit currently in the game.
If you were able to do such a trade, it would be something like trading the B-25s, P-39s, Brewster, I-16 and the next two single engined aircraft or the next twin engined aircraft.
Clear?
-
B-29s did play a major role in making sure we didnt have to invade main land japan. Not just nukes but in conventional ord. The plane doesnt have to have a historical load out you could make it so it could only carry as much or a little more than a lanc.
-
So lets dumb this down so maybe folks will get it.
Aces High at best represents a tactical airwar. The B29 was a long range strategic bomber. It did not fly in support of ground troops, it supported no invasions, didn't go after airfields etc. It was basically used to burn Japanese cities to the ground, and it did it well.
We don't have a strategic aspect to Aces High and last I saw, burning cities to the ground wasn't an option. And I seriously doubt you will get many scenario players to hang around on Japanese airfields for a few hours waiting for the B29s from the Marianas, China or Tinian to arrive so they can try and intercept them.
You can at least historically point to the use of the other 4 engine bombers in game to some tactical airwar use supporting the ground war in the ETO or pounding islands in the PTO.
In short, there is no historical justification, or practical use for a B29 in Aces high until the ranges get longer and strategic targets become part of the game.
There are far more planes that would make sense to the tactical airwar game that AH is, long before the B29
Until then the addition of the B29 would just be to grief or to unbalance the gameplay.
-
Pull your effing heads out of your rectal orifices. B-29s were responsible for decimating a large portion of Japan, and that was well before the nukes were ever used. Try researching something before you fill a thread up with idiotic posts about nuclear weapons, it's ridiculous.
My your 11th post and already telling people how dumb they are in three diferent threads. Not to mention telling people to do research when you obviously haven't done your own in the level bomber CV thread. Not to mention you rose this thread from the grave after nearly a year and a half to show how smart you are. My but you're going to be a very entertaining little Fokker aren't you? :lol
-
So lets dumb this down so maybe folks will get it.
Aces High at best represents a tactical airwar. The B29 was a long range strategic bomber. It did not fly in support of ground troops, it supported no invasions, didn't go after airfields etc. It was basically used to burn Japanese cities to the ground, and it did it well.
We don't have a strategic aspect to Aces High and last I saw, burning cities to the ground wasn't an option. And I seriously doubt you will get many scenario players to hang around on Japanese airfields for a few hours waiting for the B29s from the Marianas, China or Tinian to arrive so they can try and intercept them.
You can at least historically point to the use of the other 4 engine bombers in game to some tactical airwar use supporting the ground war in the ETO or pounding islands in the PTO.
In short, there is no historical justification, or practical use for a B29 in Aces high until the ranges get longer and strategic targets become part of the game.
There are far more planes that would make sense to the tactical airwar game that AH is, long before the B29
Until then the addition of the B29 would just be to grief or to unbalance the gameplay.
Because the groundwar is the lynchpin of this game. Theres plenty of historical justification for it as if it matters(163,The jetbomber).
We have strat targets now IE AA, Ammo,Radar, factorys we even have towns to bomb. Nobody says that they want to see it right away just at some point.
Lets dumb it down so maybe you can get it. It should be added if not now at some point. Oh and it doesn't have to have a 22,000 lbs bomb load.
-
There is a lot of things that we like to see in AH. But the fact is there's also 50 gadrillion reasons why we don't have some of them. If I had my choice, More boats, frigates, teh ability to steer the ability to steer the CV as though a normal ground craft(For quicker responses to attacks, mobile land based Howitzer cannons and My person #1 thing I'd want, SUBMARINES! For sneakign up on TG's.
Really though most requests like the B-29 have just to many complications or tip balances to much.
-
LOL and which part of the lang range strategic bomber don't you get?
They didn't attack shipping. They didn't attack radar. They didn't attack airfields. They burned cities in Japan to the ground. Again they were good at what they did, but they are far down the list of usefulness in AH.
The A26, which is also one I'd have down the list, is way above the B29 on my list of what makes sense for the type of 'airwar' in AH. At least the A26 was involved in the tactical airwar.
So back to dumbing it down. You are correct, the ground war, or tactical air war that supports taking ground is at least a part of AH. The B29 did not participate in that part of the airwar, which you yourself say is the lynchpin of the game.
Make up your mind :)
-
LOL and which part of the lang range strategic bomber don't you get?
They didn't attack shipping. They didn't attack radar. They didn't attack airfields. They burned cities in Japan to the ground. Again they were good at what they did, but they are far down the list of usefulness in AH.
The A26, which is also one I'd have down the list, is way above the B29 on my list of what makes sense for the type of 'airwar' in AH. At least the A26 was involved in the tactical airwar.
So back to dumbing it down. You are correct, the ground war, or tactical air war that supports taking ground is at least a part of AH. The B29 did not participate in that part of the airwar, which you yourself say is the lynchpin of the game.
Make up your mind :)
Technically, by that argument we shouldn't really have the B-17 and B-24, either, because their use in the European Theaters WAS primarily strategic. And FSO has had no problem whatsoever implementing strategic bombing campaigns in ETO (or PTO, for that matter) setups.
-
Technically, by that argument we shouldn't really have the B-17 and B-24, either, because their use in the European Theaters WAS primarily strategic. And FSO has had no problem whatsoever implementing strategic bombing campaigns in ETO (or PTO, for that matter) setups.
But 17s and 24s were hitting airfields, bombing the beach heads, etc. Part of the problem on Omaha beach was the 4 engine guys missed their targets. Eisenhower had the 8th and 9th doing tactical bombing priort to and after D-Day. The campaign against strategic targets was secondary Opening Operation Cobra they bombed their own guys, slowing Bradley's start. The hit shipping and islands in the Pacific and operated at all altitudes.
The 29 did none of that. In the MA it would be the griefer of choice and the fight killer of choice.
Think about how you'd do a historical scenario with 29s. Do we have the guys first fly in their own fuel from India to China, then go again to Japan? Do we have the fighter guys wait hours til the 29s get to the rendevous points so the 51s and 47Ns can up from Iwo? how bout the Japanese guys sitting around waiting for those long range birds.
Bottom line for me, is it's way down the list in terms of what should get added for both the MA or FSO/Scenario/Snapshot use.
-
I'll take one of these before the 29...sexier too...kinda a like a giant 38! :x
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Northrop_P-61A_061024-F-1234P-021.jpg)
-
I'll take one of these before the 29...sexier too...kinda a like a giant 38! :x
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/Northrop_P-61A_061024-F-1234P-021.jpg)
And it would be more justified then the 29 at this point and it's a night fighter, but at least it was used by the TAC air guys
-
In case any of you didn't notice... CaptainFokker punted a thread that had been dead since April of 2008 (over a year).
WTG... keep the replies coming.
-
In case any of you didn't notice... CaptainFokker punted a thread that had been dead since April of 2008 (over a year).
WTG... keep the replies coming.
im sure if he posted a new thread he would have got the "use the search button hurr hurr" line.
but i did not notice it
-
Funny thing was, I did use the search function, but I didn't pay attention to the thread started/last post dates.
-
Apples and oranges sir. There wouldn't be remote turrets. Think about it. But hey, a great bunch of paragraphs nonetheless. :salute
My opinion has always been the difficulty and ramifications of the required modeling for the remote firing turrets.
-
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/NecroBumpBatman.jpg)
-
Well, i dont really care anyway. I just want to see a nuke blow domthin up in AH2 :devil
-
Screw it! I want the NOOOOOK man! :rock
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :lol :lol :lol
-
yeah, or they can just make some of the mountain top bases at 33.5k or above special bomber fields. That way you can still target them specifically to knock out the bombers and it reduces the time to climb if your flying one.
Holy CRAP. Scuzzy didn't edit you (I was half expecting him to just edit all your posts in this thread).
-
oh hell why hold back.if your ganna ask for a big boy toyto fly........go bigger the biggest piston engine bomber ever......
THE B-36 J PEACE MAKER.
First flight wasn't until 1946...
-
B-29 Superfortress, ya know why?
Because I'm bored and I hate kittens...
-
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
I'm first!
-
yep yep, that's the good stuff
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/bang-head.gif)
-
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/nope_logo2.gif)
-
The B-29 threads are slap-contests. One side believes it will greatly assist the game while the other knows it will unbalance the universe itself.
(http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/4444/computerwar.gif)
When oh when will the mayhem stop?
(http://img364.imageshack.us/img364/2456/godkillskittenpd3.jpg)
-
they "could" (not ever gonna happen) put it in without the nuke (yet again not gonna happen)
-
Almost makes me want to burn my Eagles jerseys............
-
(http://www.psidea.org/images/BangHeadHere.gif)
-
Almost makes me want to burn my Eagles jerseys............
Ha, sorry about that.
-
What if the b-29 was added to the many planes in AH. This question has haunted many players and AH staff alike.
I will tell you what would happen. A small baseball size black hole would Form at the AH server. It would slowly consume everything around it getting bigger as it swallowed up more matter. Slowly but surely it would consume more and more, nothing could stop it. Whole city's would be swallowed up. Panic would spread and there would be a massive break down of the governments of the world. Anarchy and chaos would rule the day. All the time the black hole would swallow more and more until earth was swallowed whole. Nothing would be left. But the story doesn't end here, no. The black hole would continue on its gluttonous feast. Starting with mars and Venus swallowing them up getting bigger and bigger. The rest of the solar system including the sun would be sucked into this vacuum of nothingness. The Black hole would continue eating other solar systems maybe with earth like planets of there own. This would continue until all that ever was or all that would ever be was gone. The universe would be devoid of all things a empty black shell for eternity.
That is why we must make sure that the b-29 and its nuclear payload never see the Sky's of Aces High. So stand with me against this potential world ending plane. This is your chance to be earths hero. If you are standing with me just add this to your Signature PATAOT29 (PeopleAgainstTheAddingOfThe29)
-
Holy crap, we are all being melodramatic lately aren't we?
Kilo2, I doubt that would happen from 1 plane.
jay, I doubt, that it will NEVER get in. Remember, if this game lasts long enough, then eventually every plane, vehicle, and boat will be added.
Denholm, I agree about the slap fight, but not about the knowledge that it will destroy the game. I am in the middle leaning to the B29 side. Oh, and to hell with the kittens.
btw, where, when and how did that get started?
-
Yes... add it........ NOW!
-
At least I get another chance to post this again...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDxMF-XGDn4
-
He's new and yet you act as if you guys know better than to do this. Guess i was wrong.
-
Because I'm bored and I hate kittens...
This to me signifies that he is not new.
you act as if you guys know better than to do this.
:huh
-
(http://www.psidea.org/images/BangHeadHere.gif)
Crap!! I just broke my monitor. HAHA!
-
This to me signifies that he is not new.
:huh
lol thanks Mar, everyone was so quick to argue the same 'ole stuff they didn't even get that I was making a joke. I've been following the forums for a while but just recently started posting.
Still, it was pretty funny to see the response.
-
well i dont want to be a bad one here, but who cares about the nuke you can just bring the plane, its time for a new bomber. if there was a nuke make them 2k perks each with a 2 hour re-spawn period to each player. theres my 2 cents
-
Being serious though, sure I'd like to see a B-29 in the game, but I understand why there isn't, at least why there isn't now.
The nuke isn't an issue, just don't put it in, like we don't have a 22,000 Grand Slam for the Lancaster, it makes sense.
Altering the runways would be a pain, although I do like the idea of doing something like the 163 where you can only launch one from a few bases.
Perk the bad boy.
But there are plenty of other planes that deserve to be in the game first. It's funny to watch people who are tired of this topic yet continue to respond to every post on it.
-
The title says it all.
I'll leave you to hash it out after I finish this.
Aside from the 20mm in the tail, it's not THAT much more dangerous than the B-24. about the only advantage it would give is to be able to knock out multiple towns before landing. And the odds are most will get shot down due to lack of good gunners. Besides we have those uber jets with the four 30mm cannons, why can't we have a good perk bomber?
And you know what...screw the kittens two. I don't care.
BTW this is mostly for fun.
-
yeah, and we also need a n00k, badly, lol.
there are very good reasons the B-29 isnt in the game. but hell, i wish it was.
-
Can't have the B29 because we as a community can't be trusted not to abuse it.
-
yeah, and we also need a n00k, badly, lol.
there are very good reasons the B-29 isnt in the game. but hell, i wish it was.
And what are those?
As it stands we have nothing to spend our bomber perks on. Other then a pretty much irrelevant jet bomber.
I was thinking about that today as I stared at all those worthless bomber perks and have been reading all these "thank you AH for allowing me to play your game" accolade threads.
One perked bomber. And that be'ith a Queen.
-
I think we don't have the B-29 for same reason we don't have the He 111.
-
And what are those?
As it stands we have nothing to spend our bomber perks on. Other then a pretty much irrelevant jet bomber.
I was thinking about that today as I stared at all those worthless bomber perks and have been reading all these "thank you AH for allowing me to play your game" accolade threads.
One perked bomber. And that be'ith a Queen.
I can open up MstWntd's Ar234 Top Gun School...
-
Here is the problem, aside from the stability issue the B-29 had. It has the same/better armor than the already super uber B-17. Has TWO, not one, but two 20mm cannons. It is grossly faster than many bombers and can climb so high every fighter that would try and risk it would die.
It requires extra long, and strengthened runways to get up in the air; it can carry enough ordinance to knock 1 1/2 bases off the face of AH. The fireball alone of the Fat Man bomb was 218.72 yards. That is 0.12 of a mile. Can you imagine the blast force and radiation?
-
You got the noOOook. It's called the WSOD.
Eveytime you get the white screen of death now you can imagine
you just flew into a nooOOook_U_lar explosion!
-
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
(http://img91.imageshack.us/img91/5402/nukeg.gif)
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1424/stugs.jpg)
-
Isn't this your second B-29 thread...with the same title...?
-
*sighs*
These locats are here to give you not-so-subtle messages... I really hope you're happy killing them...
*ahem*
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-cat-is-in-a-rut.jpg)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-cat-is-stupid.jpg)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-kitten-read-your-jou.jpg)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-cat-hates-humans.jpg)
-
Nemesis, legoman and stealth, do you all go to the same kindergarten?
-
B29 Fun
Are we gonna have it?
No.
-
:aok
-
*sighs*
These locats are here to give you not-so-subtle messages... I really hope you're happy killing them...
*ahem*
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-cat-is-in-a-rut.jpg)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-cat-is-stupid.jpg)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-kitten-read-your-jou.jpg)
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/funny-pictures-cat-hates-humans.jpg)
seems like most of these tpe of pictures people post always have cats in them, i find them funny time to change this thread to cat picture thread :rock
-
Trigger2, I said it in the first post...
SCREW THE KITTENS!!! I hope they DIE!
No, my other thread had a different title.
Guys I am not supporting the Nuke. I say it should go the way of the kittens in fact.
I want something to spend perkies on that offers something other than speed, almost pointless bombload, and no defensive armament.
And for all you who whine that it will slaughter fighters, answer me this... Have you ever survived fighting a 190A-8? If so then you should be fine ATTACKING, as long as you are not stupid enough to stay still and attack in the cannon armed areas.
-
I couldn't care less about the 20mm tailgun, although that is a factor that leads me to say "NO!" What's the main other one? BOMBLOAD! 20,000lbs of ord is enough to make the game a one man show, WHICH it is NOT supposed to be, this game is designed to require teamwork, not 1 buff to drop 3 bases and then grab a goon. So, I would like to point you to the picture I posted that had the title of "Futility."
~Trig
-
Yes, but most newbs won't wast the time to climb high enough to avoid fighters, and C-47's are the most vulnerable planes in the game. Besides, most of them don't know good bombing tequnique and will drop a single bomb on a hanger and think they just killed it. One solution to that problem would be to disable formations with it. That way people who want the PLANE not the bombload can fly it, and you still have the lanc to drop a whole crap load of ord on some poor saps head.
-
Perk the ord say 10-20 perks a bomb? That way even if you carry only one bomb you still loose points, which will reduce the amount of time you can fly it before you have to restock perks, further more keeping it out of that hands of "squeekers". Perk the plane and bombload.....
-
You still have the old bomber vets who have trillions of perks amassed over a 7yr carrear.
And that would be unrealistic. It would still be armed with 1000 pounders.
I still say disabling formation would take care of the problem. A lanc formation could carry over double the B-29's load. And a formation of B-24's could carry 2000lbs more. So no one can complane that it would be uber except for it's 20mm's.
-
Just give it an outrageously high perk price and everything will work itself out after the first few months. Before it works out, we will at least have something new to complain about.
-
If it can't do as much as a formation of B-24's then why should it be perked. We should have a basic package and charge 400 perks per plane after the first. And if you want a nuke to go with that then you have to pay 1000000 trillion perks per plane and each bullet you have in the defensive armament.
-
Yeah all those ords and no matter how many you drop on a hangar its still only down for 15 mins. CVs respawn, cities and industry rebuild, and you can even jump into a new airplane should yours get shot down.
How many you think have the patience to climb to 30,000' in bombers? Very few. Besides the other bombers can fly that high too.
Anyway the thing is in the 2 &1/2 years since Ive been in this game we have had one thing happen with bombers. The B-25 was added. Thats it! No other new ones, no additional perk ones, not even any remodeled ones.
B29s, TU-2s, A-26s, HE-111s, Bettys, remodeled B-26s....whatever! We need movement in the bomber area. We need a new perkie bomber and we need a Russian one. We definitely need something!
-
I still say disabling formation would take care of the problem. A lanc formation could carry over double the B-29's load. And a formation of B-24's could carry 2000lbs more. So no one can complane that it would be uber except for it's 20mm's.
Specifications (Lancaster)
Crew: 7: pilot, flight engineer, navigator, bomb aimer, wireless operator, mid-upper and rear gunners
Length: 69 ft 5 in (21.18 m)
Wingspan: 102 ft (31.09 m)
Height: 19 ft 7 in (5.97 m)
Wing area: 1,300 ft² (120 m²)
Empty weight: 36 828 lb (16,705 kg)
Loaded weight: 63,000 lb (29,000 kg)
Powerplant: 4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
Performance
Maximum speed: 240 kn (280 mph, 450 km/h) at 15,000 ft (5,600 m)
Range: 2,700 nmi (3,000 mi, 4,600 km) with minimal bomb load
Service ceiling: 23,500 ft (8,160 m)
Wing loading: 48 lb/ft² (240 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.082 hp/lb (130 W/kg)
Armament
Guns: 8× 0.303 in (7.7 mm) Browning machine guns in three turrets, with variations
Bombs: Maximum normal bomb load of 14,000 lb (6,300kg) or 22,000 lb Grand Slam with modifications to bomb bay.
Specifications (B-29)
Boeing B-29 SuperfortressData from Quest for Performance
General characteristics
Crew: 11: (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot), bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
Wing area: 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²)
Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg -- 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record))
Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km))
Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Wing loading: 69.12 lb/sqft (337 kg/m²)
Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament
Guns:
10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
B-29B-BW - All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout
Should say it all...
-
You never said a thing about the B24 wich with a formation can carry more than my suggested single B-29. AND you said you don't really care about the cannons which is what is mostly changed in the armament.
-
We already have mostly allied bombers. Something like half a dozen fighters or maybe 2-3 Tu-2 sized bombers could be added instead of the B-29.
-
you didnt see it in the last patch?
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z235/nathanyoung1980/Untitled-1-1.jpg)
-
No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers. (aka PE-8, TU-2, HE-111, ME-410, P.108, SM.79...) before the B29, we have a lot of holes in the bombers set just to add another-we-already-have-type bomber.
:noid
-
you didnt see it in the last patch?
no
-
No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers. (aka PE-8, TU-2, HE-111, ME-410, P.108, SM.79...) before the B29, we have a lot of holes in the bombers set just to add another-we-already-have-type bomber.
:noid
I hate to come in a burst your bubble, but you know everyone here already knows you copied the rest of our posts?
Don't worry though, you sound very smart. :D
I still give this thread a FAIL.
-
No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers.
Didn't you get the email? HT said no jap or italian heavies. It's like the first comandment in AH2.
-
no
(http://img6.imageshack.us/img6/5403/hooked.jpg)
-
I hate to come in a burst your bubble, but you know everyone here already knows you copied the rest of our posts?
Don't worry though, you sound very smart. :D
I still give this thread a FAIL.
Not really, every one that knows the game knows this cuz is what we need, is not about to copy, is about what we need, and I think 80% of the vets want those ones, I have 6 years waiting for the Yak-3/Tu-2 and if god HT like it an PE-8 ^^ (and im not talking about fighters, just bombers) the day that AH have the same planes/GV's that IL2, then I can die with a smile (of curse after using everyone of them) :salute
-
.
:lol
-
Trigger2, I said it in the first post...
SCREW THE KITTENS!!! I hope they DIE!
No, my other thread had a different title.
Guys I am not supporting the Nuke. I say it should go the way of the kittens in fact.
I want something to spend perkies on that offers something other than speed, almost pointless bombload, and no defensive armament.
And for all you who whine that it will slaughter fighters, answer me this... Have you ever survived fighting a 190A-8? If so then you should be fine ATTACKING, as long as you are not stupid enough to stay still and attack in the cannon armed areas.
but i like cats :cry
-
No need to say why we don't need the B-29, they already said... the main point is that we don't need another heavy US bomber we have enough heavy bombers, we need heavy/midle Russian, Italian, Japanese and German midle bombers. (aka PE-8, TU-2, HE-111, ME-410, P.108, SM.79...) before the B29, we have a lot of holes in the bombers set just to add another-we-already-have-type bomber.
:noid
Why would we ever want an Italian bomber? That is like an oxymoron.
-
SOP
(http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd329/TwizztyAH/nookie.gif)
-
You know what, for all those who say we shouldn't get the B-29; Tell me why. Use good solid facts, not "it will completely un balance the game". And take into consideration that I have suggested it be only 1 plane (formation of B-24 and lanc can carry more, and I think a Ju88 formation can carry almost as much, if not as much), not a formation of B-29's. Please give me good reasons. If you don't I will consider it an admition of defeat.
-
Why would we ever want an Italian bomber? That is like an oxymoron.
+1
-
The B-29 looks great over my new Reno terrain...
Even has a few test craters to the NE...
(Just have to know how to get to in game!)
-
Nice strip. You should email me your reno terain.
-
You know what, for all those who say we shouldn't get the B-29; Tell me why. Use good solid facts, not "it will completely un balance the game". And take into consideration that I have suggested it be only 1 plane (formation of B-24 and lanc can carry more, and I think a Ju88 formation can carry almost as much, if not as much), not a formation of B-29's. Please give me good reasons. If you don't I will consider it an admition of defeat.
Here's some that I found convincing...
Three reasons why it would unbalance the game:
1) 60,000 lb of bombs for one formation.
2) 33,000+ feet altitude capability, combined with speeds of up to 355 mph.
3) One 20mm cannon and two .50 cal MGs in the tail. That means having to tail chase and close on a very fast bomber formation with double the firepower of a formation of B-24s.
Great for the Buffers, very bad for everyone else... Don't expect to see the B-29.
My regards,
Widewing
Alright then lets try this....
When the B-29 was operating, very little if any opposition was mounted by the Japanese. Thus, scenarios/events involving the B-29 would be rather boring. Hence, no B-29 needed for a scenario, NO B-29.
Another reason is that except for the tail guns, all guns were remotely sighted and fired. To do that would really be a coding challenge.
My regards,
Widewing
The periscopic gunsight can indeed be a problem. They tried to implement it for the Ar 234 long time ago, but ti didn't work. It's not so much a coding problem we do have remote controlled turrets in AH already but a graphical one - Trying to put the point of view into that small periscope resulted in clipping errors. Of course it's all specualtion about how difficult that would be the fix - but after all those years, we still don't have the periscopic gunsight for the 234 ;)
B-17
-----
13 × .50 in (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns
Maximum speed: 287 mph (249 kn, 462 km/h)
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Range: 2,000 mi
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
B-29
-----
Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position
Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nm, 5,230 km)
Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout, could be modified to
externally carry two 22,000 lb (10,000 kg) T-14 "Earthquake" bombs
Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
Difference
---------
12,000 lbs of ord (not counting the T-14 "Earthquake"). - B-29
70 mph faster - B-29
Guns - B-29 (Same number of guns, but 20mm tailgun packs a punch).
1,250mi Range difference - B-29
Why I don't want to see it.
--------------------------
A plane at ~35k going 357 mph with our planeset is going to be INCREDIBLY difficult to catch.(the lala has a max speed of 423 on the deck...)
Bombload. 20,000 lbs of bombs? That's MORE than enough to level a field, with or without t3h n00k.
-
You did not listen Trigger. I said we were assuming that it would be a single bomber. It's a good compromise, good bomb load, but you get shot down, that was your one and only plane. The single plane will also solve the problem of getting shot at by 3 20mm's + at least 6 .50's.
-
Honestly, I see the first few months being terrible, but after the novelty wears off, and several of these start to get shot down (hey, they NEED to come down to land, eventually), or have takeoff accidents (seems like a challenging bird to get airborne on a short runway), I just don't see it being that unbalancing.
People say there are so many bomber pilots with 1,000's of perks that they could fly it nonstop. Well, that's also currently true for fighter jocks and the 262, yet for various reasons you don't see those nonstop.
Give it an absolutely massive perk price (500?), deal with two months of whines, and after that you'll finally have something decent for aspiring bomber pilots to save for.
-
Well we could have it perked like that if you get a formation with it. Otherwise no. I don't see people saving 500 perks to take out ONE B-29 and probably crashing and loosing all of those perks. I say maby 150-200 per plane (have an option to take out 1, 2, or 3 planes), and then it won't be unbalancing. We can't perk it at 3 times the rate for a 262 or you will get people whining that it is almost pointless to have.
-
or you will get people whining that it is almost pointless to have.
It is.
Read all the quotes I gave, not only the first one...
-
You did not listen Trigger....
You didn't read. Skip the part about the bomb-load.
-
Just add it, think of the space on the BBS!
-
Yes I read all your quotes trigger. I have no solution to the remote turret problem, but then again, I know little about writing code and therefore have know idea of how easily it could be done. As for the range thing: I doubt most people will use the full range. Maybe a couple of clowns looking for something to do but that is it. I have a solution to the bomb load: MAKE IT A SINGLE PLANE!!! A formation of Ju88's could carry almost as much (something like 500lbs less) and B-24, and lanc formations will carry more than it. As for the cannon in the tail. We have the Ki67 with a cannon in a dorsal mount. So if you aren't two stuborn to change the way you attack (actually attack from the sides, top or bottom instead of holding perfectly still in the tail area) then you will be fine. I see no way that this would unballance the game in a way that the 262 and 163 don't.
If you get your uber fightERS then I should get my uber bombER.
-
You still haven't addressed the speed with altitude issue. As stated, it would run away from most anything we have forcing an attack from the rear (cannon).
-
limit the alt. Don't let them climb above 20k. Just like someone suggested we have it so bomb doors won't open below 14k.
-
I'm going to ask this question again and I would like a serious thought out answer.
How would adding the B29 as a perked bomber unbalance the game/arena?
-
Riiight. Let's limit the bomber to an altitude.
While we're at it, let's cap the Tempest at 300 M.P.H., drop two of it's 20MMs, and remove its tail-wheel. Oh, let's also remove one engine from the B-17, B-24, and Lancaster. That way everything will be jussssst right.
-
I have no solution to the remote turret problem, but then again, I know little about writing code and therefore have know idea of how easily it could be done.
Luckily, I do have experiance... Let's just say that writing the game Snake (you know, get the pellets, make it grow, but don't run into yourself. ;)) in FLASH took me about 3 "days" (45 minute sittings) and about 250 (about 400 counting the highscore system I put in [internet high score, not just on own computer]) lines of code. I am unaware of what language AHII is programmed in, but from the looks of what I've seen, it's a version of C. And from what I've read on the issue, it'd be one helluvan obstical to have to jump around. The only bit of code that I've ever seen that was easy was in programming class, the teacher didn't want to teach that day, so our assignment was the make a console application that whenever started would say, "Hello world." in C#. Took us all 3 minutes to do, simply because it took the computer 2 mins and 45 secs to load the program we used to write the code. ;)
Edit: Looking at my code I see ways to reduce the length down to about 50-75 lines of code (using an existing object as a key listener etc...)
If you get your uber fightERS then I should get my uber bombER.
See, the flaw in your argument is I'm a primary bomber. B-24 all the way.
I'm going to ask this question again and I would like a serious thought out answer.
How would adding the B29 as a perked bomber unbalance the game/arena?
1) *sighs* read my previous post.
2)You still haven't addressed the speed with altitude issue. As stated, it would run away from most anything we have forcing an attack from the rear (cannon).
-
OK, so you think coding the turrets would be hard...I think. The problem with my argument is that you love your B-24. Let me offer this as a rebuttle to your last quote: nothing can catch the 262 or 163. And I doubt most will spend the time to get to alt. Maby a few loonies, but I think that is it. How many people do we have flying buffs at 20k, 25k and 30k right now?
-
No dont add it the universe and all things would be destroyed.
-
Actually the coding of the guns would easy I think as HT already has something like it in place. When you man the cruiser 8" guns you're remotely controlling the turret from the fire control position.
-
No dont add it the universe and all things would be destroyed.
Afraid your score will go down? Afraid you won't get to attack newbs defending themselvs with only 2 .50's? Oh poor kilo.
Actually the coding of the guns would easy I think as HT already has something like it in place. When you man the cruiser 8" guns you're remotely controlling the turret from the fire control position.
Well yes, but you are not seeing through the gunsight. You see crosshairs that wouldn't be there in real life. Maybe you could have it so you see from the position of the gun and can't look from side to side. You have to traverse the turret.
-
Afraid your score will go down? Afraid you won't get to attack newbs defending themselvs with only 2 .50's? Oh poor kilo.
Well yes, but you are not seeing through the gunsight. You see crosshairs that wouldn't be there in real life. Maybe you could have it so you see from the position of the gun and can't look from side to side. You have to traverse the turret.
No actually my score is pretty poor as I really don't care. And I haven't shot down many bombers this tour.
-
Methinks HTC already has the B29 hiding somewhere in their source code... :noid
-
OK, so you think coding the turrets would be hard...I think. The problem with my argument is that you love your B-24.
Yup, but I have been the first to support any good plane that would not throw the world of AH off of its mantle. Take a peek at the Dornier Do.217 thread. Make a search on some of mine. The faireys/the Falco I, Reggiane Re 2000?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,251751.0.html
The Dornier Do.217?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,239807.0.html
I fly anything and everything, I just fly the B-24 more.Let me offer this as a rebuttle to your last quote: nothing can catch the 262 or 163.
Been your rebuttle and many others since the first wish for the b-29... so I'll leave it be for I'm getting sick of trying to make little twits see any reason besides their own score...
And I doubt most will spend the time to get to alt. Maby a few loonies, but I think that is it. How many people do we have flying buffs at 20k, 25k and 30k right now?
As I stated before, if I spend 250 perks on something, I'm making sure it gets home. I already drop from around 20k, sometimes 25k, but if I were to spend the perks, I'd be at its service ceiling, hauling, and getting it home SAFELY...
-
Methinks HTC already has the B29 hiding somewhere in their source code... :noid
Aha!!! scuzzy locked himself and the rest of the HTC staff out of the source code, and wiped the password from all of their memories with that MIB flashy thingie.
Yup, but I have been the first to support any good plane that would not throw the world of AH off of its mantle. Take a peek at the Dornier Do.217 thread. Make a search on some of mine. The faireys/the Falco I, Reggiane Re 2000?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,251751.0.html
The Dornier Do.217?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,239807.0.html
I fly anything and everything, I just fly the B-24 more.
Been your rebuttle and many others since the first wish for the b-29... so I'll leave it be for I'm getting sick of trying to make little twits see any reason besides their own score...
As I stated before, if I spend 250 perks on something, I'm making sure it gets home. I already drop from around 20k, sometimes 25k, but if I were to spend the perks, I'd be at its service ceiling, hauling, and getting it home SAFELY...
*sighs* (nem laughs to himself) B-29 would not throw the world "off it's mantle". About all it means is average bombadiers will take out 2 bases as opposed to the usual 1; that bombers will make it further before dying and the fighter jockey casualty rate will be higher; that, overall, a few more bases will be captured in the usual day, the 262 and 163 flyers will have a new specilized line of work; and that about half of the AH2 community will be contented, and the other half will be in a state of dismay untill they realize that it's not a big deal.
And someone is not a "twit" because he wants something you don't.
-
"And someone is not a "twit" because he wants something you don't."
here here ! I think he mispelled "twat"
-
BTW, trigger, I am not one of those people who only care about their score.
I just want to fly the B-29. I don't really care if I make it back or not. If I want to make it back then there are other planes that can do it almost as well.
-
Seriously we ain't getting this bomber. never not going to happen so stop asking for it. there needs to be a temp ban if some 1 wants b29 and posts it any where on the forums. Its a great bomber and all but no way its like the tiger II too heavy and powerful. just ain't going to happen.also we need a permanent squelch button there's too many squeakers out there that need to be squelched. its squeaker squelching 09-when ever little kids aren't aloud to play games with 16 yr peeps and older peeps.And a longer squelch list instead of the current max of 10? need like list of 100 keep them squeaks at bay.
-
:rolleyes:
-
:rolleyes:
its annoying tho some 1 be bound to post a topic like this :rolleyes:
-
also we need a permanent squelch button there's too many squeakers out there that need to be squelched. its squeaker squelching 09-when ever little kids aren't aloud to play games with 16 yr peeps and older peeps.And a longer squelch list instead of the current max of 10? need like list of 100 keep them squeaks at bay.
Pot meet kettle...any questions?
-
BRING THE B-29 TO ACES HIGH :D
-
BRING THE B-29 TO ACES HIGH :D
Ugh. not ANOTHER one!
No B-29 for you :P
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
-
Oh yes we are getting it.
-
I swear, you are all like the McCain supporters in that south park episode where everyone freakes out, Obama supporters go nuts and party and take things to far, where the McCain supporters are convinced the world will end.
BTW Scuzzy, that wasn't political, that was just an example.
I think we should get it, but it won't make a huge positive impact like some people, and I think it would make a MINOR negative impact at WORST, unlike some of you. Most won't do anything but plaster fields, and take out a whole base which can already be done. Some won't even do that. Some will take out half the town and go bug someone else. It isn't THAT much better than the B-24 except when at serious alt. So unless you NEVER let a B-24 slip through, and take out a field, or base AND have PHYSICAL PROOF that the B-29 will be as "bad" as you say it will, STOP WHINING!!!!
-
can me have the b29.
-
I WANT I WANT I WANT
:rock
-
. its squeaker squelching 09-when ever little kids aren't aloud to play games with 16 yr peeps and older peeps.
Oh the irony!
-
its squeaker squelching 09-when ever little kids aren't aloud to play games with 16 yr peeps and older peeps.
LMAO! I love how he puts his age as the minimum. Sorry man but your still a squeaker to many....
-
Seriously we ain't getting this bomber. never not going to happen so stop asking for it. there needs to be a temp ban if some 1 wants b29 and posts it any where on the forums. Its a great bomber and all but no way its like the tiger II too heavy and powerful. just ain't going to happen.also we need a permanent squelch button there's too many squeakers out there that need to be squelched. its squeaker squelching 09-when ever little kids aren't aloud to play games with 16 yr peeps and older peeps.And a longer squelch list instead of the current max of 10? need like list of 100 keep them squeaks at bay.
I personally think we should get it, so you don't get your way. ;)
-
^lol
-
so.........was a cat just saved? I THINK SO!!!! :rock
-
how about we take the ords of a lancaster, increase its speed, give it better defensive guns and skin it like a B-29.
perk it at 70.
Absolutely no nuke whatsoever.
It is a more acceptable B-29 dont you think?
-
No. but maybe after your 30th "B-29 thread", the answer will still be "No"?
-
As a player who likes the idea of bringing a B-29 into the game; these threads are getting old, I understand now.
-
I am pretty sure that even if we got the b-29 you wouldn't be able to get it off these runways which would make it kind of pointless.
-
all i said is that it is a little more acceptable.
I dont really want a b-29.
I would really like a G4M betty.
-
all i said is that it is a little more acceptable.
I dont really want a b-29.
I would really like a G4M betty.
Then why not start a "G4M Thread"?
-
I am pretty sure that even if we got the b-29 you wouldn't be able to get it off these runways which would make it kind of pointless.
Well obviously that would be something to fix or alter if the B-29 was brought in, they aren't going to model a plane then not let you fly it.
-
We will get the B-29. There is no stopping AH to develop it.
-
Then why not start a "G4M Thread"?
Because i was bored.
-
We will get the B-29. There is no stopping AH to develop it.
Really? I recall Dale himself stating otherwise.
-
Because im a troll.
But then again, when your 13 year old CO is named "AceMan", that pretty much lays it all out there.
-
But then again, when your 13 year old CO is named "AceMan", that pretty much lays it all out there.
I've met Aceman in the EW arena, he seems alright to me.
-
But then again, when your 13 year old CO is named "AceMan", that pretty much lays it all out there.
13 year old CO. thats sad.
-
No. but maybe after your 30th "B-29 thread", the answer will still be "No"?
pfft, B29 with a reasonable bomb load would be great!
-
I've met Aceman in the EW arena, he seems alright to me.
It was stated to highlight someone's "boredom" as they are a squad of squeakers.
-
so.........was a cat just saved? I THINK SO!!!! :rock
Sorry shark bite, that cat, along with this topic, is going to the dogs. I'm sorry, but people have no grounds for whining other than wild speculation. Give me PROOF the B-29 will be as apocalyptic as you say, then OK, I will agree. Until then...no.
-
Sandwich, that is NOT a B-29. You can't just take another bombers bomb load, and change the speed, and skin, and call it a B-29.
-
I got an Idea.... how about endless ammo, planes able to make 1800 turns, no blackouts, no red outs, unlimited speed, the ability to warp over to the enemy's HQ, titanium around pilots with cannon proof glass, anti HO button (to evade the constant HO's), afterburners for prop aircraft air to air missiles with laser lock. GV's with lasers to guide eggs to Spawn campers.
I would get this plane at 1000 perkies.
OH yea and if God was one of us..........
-
:rofl
-
13 year old CO. thats sad.
Does the whole squad consist of "squeekers"??
If so, whats "sad" about it?
-
SOP
(http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd329/TwizztyAH/nookie.gif)
-
Does the whole squad consist of "squeekers"??
If so, whats "sad" about it?
If it is a whole squad of squekers, i stand corrected. Good to see the sqekers united.
-
SOP
(http://i528.photobucket.com/albums/dd329/TwizztyAH/nookie.gif)
:lol
-
It's more annoying when 2 monther's think they know what is good and bad.
its annoying tho some 1 be bound to post a topic like this :rolleyes:
-
we will eventually get it and the tiger 2 { king tiger } but not yet, it wont be in for YEARS so drop it people we will get it, it will take 4-6 years maybe more, there is more importaint things we need! like the helldiver
-
Agreed, we NEED a new divebomber.
-
like how i snuck that in :D 20mm cannons and bombs and 4 hvar rockets!
-
Is it so bad to post something that pops into your head considering how plentiful serious B-29 threads are.
It was probably not a good thing to post but no harm was done.
I just felt like proposing a more likeable version of the B-29.
As stated before i dont really want the b29 but considering the multitude of b29 posts ive seen today, many of which also ask for a nuke i felt that adding a little bit of decency to the subject we may come a tiny bit closer to finally ending posts that wish for the atomic bomb.
Also, Is it so wrong to be bored? It's not trolling, It's me being excited for football practice tomorrow.
-
like how i snuck that in :D 20mm cannons and bombs and 4 hvar rockets!
It had 20MM's?!? We need it NOW!!!!!
-
Your request wasn't any more "likeable" than the others...
-
I have a squad of squeakers. :)
-
Forget about the thread.
I admit that i was wrong.
Let it die peacefully.
-
It was stated to highlight someone's "boredom" as they are a squad of squeakers.
oh god sorry for me being born in 1996 i can't help the year i was born in and i am not a "squeaker" i have had so many people say i was mature and P.S the squad isn't a squad of squeakers so before you comment like that do some research will ya
:salute ACEMAN
-
Odd, I've never had someone tell me I'm mature...the subject never even comes up.
I wonder why someone would mention it to you....hmmmm :D
-
oh god sorry for me being born in 1996 i can't help the year i was born in and i am not a "squeaker" i have had so many people say i was mature and P.S the squad isn't a squad of squeakers so before you comment like that do some research will ya
:salute ACEMAN
if the word 'ace' is anywhere in cpid, you are be default a squeaker! :salute
-
if the word 'ace' is anywhere in cpid, you are be default a squeaker! :salute
What about me? I am THE Ace, there's a difference you know. I actually give my name a purpose. :salute
-
if the word 'ace' is anywhere in cpid, you are be default a squeaker! :salute
There is MrAce, but he doesn't squeak. He is just a sweeb, at best.
-
No. but maybe after your 30th "B-29 thread", the answer will still be "No"?
has it only been 30?
-
Only one thing to do here
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
-
has it only been 30?
Can someone with high-speed find this out? Lol, would be truly interested to know
-
its annoying tho some 1 be bound to post a topic like this :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
-
Does IL2 have the B29?
-
Goto burger king. Then you can have it your way.
-
Sorry shark bite, that cat, along with this topic, is going to the dogs. I'm sorry, but people have no grounds for whining other than wild speculation. Give me PROOF the B-29 will be as apocalyptic as you say, then OK, I will agree. Until then...no.
The last time you asked that question you didn't seem to accept the inevitable.
-
Goto burger king. Then you can have it your way.
Or Whataburger. Just like you like it.
-
theres a local family owned burger shop that has a burger called a whataburger.
MMM nummy
-
Does IL2 have the B29?
IL2 1946 has the B-29 but you cant get it untill the end of ur bombing campaign... WHICH TAKES FOREVER!!!
<<S>> Angel666
-
Bring on the B-29!
-
Bring on the B-29!
-
B-29!
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
-
hahaha, that made my day! :aok
-
You ll get it IL2 before AH, better get crackin
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
I can hear him saying that too.
-
Oh god, here we go with the soup nazi again.
-
The last time you asked that question you didn't seem to accept the inevitable.
What inevitable? That you can't find proof that the B-29 will have a negative impact on the game? If your so affraid of the B-29, design a rough copy, submit it to HTC, have them add a third late war arena with the B-29 as a trial arena, and show me what happens. If worse comes to worst HTC can always remove the B-29. I'm going to list scenarios of what might happen in order from worst (and least likely) to best.
1) As you all say, every base will go down, everyone will log off because the game has become pointless, people cancel their accounts and HTC goes bankrupt.
2)Major increase in downed bases, half log off, and quit, while the other half stay and bomb, or hunt the B-29's with their jets, HTC looses some money, and the game enters a slow growth period.
3)Those most opposed to the B-29 panic, log off and quit, most stay on and at least see what happens, the game continues much the same, continues and kinks are worked out. HTC looses a lump sum of 150$ a month due to panic quiting.
4) (and here's my bet) Everyone stays on and see what happens, the B-29 has a minor negative impact due to too low inital perking, bugs get fixed, people here on the BB who aren't current members join due to the B-29, everyone is happy, and HTC enjoys a period of prosperity.
-
Oh god, here we go with the soup nazi again.
I feel the same way when you start typing.
-
I feel the same way when you start typing.
What? Your gonna criticize me about everything because I'm not PC?
-
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
Enough already. We know you don't want the B-29.
-
Why not HTC put a rough copy of the B-29 in a Titanic Tuesday when ever they get it ready, and leave the normal arenas up for whoever doesn't want to play. The rough copy would be simply a B-29 that flys correctly, has a B-29's bombload, speed, and armament. Not all the animation has to be right. It could look like a B-24 for all I care, I just want to see if the B-29 will be as apocalyptic as many say. As for all of you who say we should have a propper B-29 for the test model, then I say "design it yourself". I bet HTC wouldn't want to waste the work required to build a B-29.
As for the problem arising from the B-29's remote controlled turrets, why not just put a regular turret in for the test model to make thing easier and not to waste work should the B-29 not work out. If it is decided the B-29 won't end the world, then I propose we have it so see it through a gun camera. I would bet that's how they had it in WW2. Just simply have it from a gun camera our sight on the screen. I can't think of a simpler way to do it. Remember, this will only be a test. If HTC get a large ammount of complaints regarding the negative impact of the "B-29" to the game, then all they have to do is remove it, and all that would be wasted be some changes to a B-24 or B-17.
-
meh.
-
I know spikes. At least it's not the flat out rejection I half expected.
This WOULD involve some work, but not nearly so much as if HTC were to design a B-29, add it into the game, and fix the bugs, and THEN see how people feel about it.
-
Way too many birds out there that should come first. Putting the time into a 'test' model 29 would take away from that.
It's still about blowing more stuff up fast and doing less in a hurry.
-
Not having the B-29 on AH is like not having P-51s or 109s.
-
Way too many birds out there that should come first. Putting the time into a 'test' model 29 would take away from that.
It's still about blowing more stuff up fast and doing less in a hurry.
I agree, this was just a way to solve the argument. I was suggesting this for when we fill out some of the weak spots in our plane set.
-
If you ever wanted to keep my annoying ideas out of the wishlist forum, posting more of these B-29 threads is the way to do it. I'm about to vomit.
-
Why does everyone freak out about a THREAD involving the B-29 :huh. Next AKP is gona post that "No B-29 for you" picture up. Its a DISCUSSION people. Weather on not we get a B-29 won't be decided by these threads, and by whoever screams loudest. If this were the 'whatever you post in here, were putting in the game' forum, then I could see a point to the slugging matches that stem from someone even talking about the B-29 :furious. But it's not.
-
only if we get the A-26 first.
Because i really want it.
-
B29 would be great.
-
B29 would be great.
Yes, i agree. BRING ON THE B-29!
-
LOL.... if they can keep posting that they want it, I can keep posting that I dont :D
-
LOL.... if they can keep posting that they want it, I can keep posting that I dont :D
Lets see who breaks first. :t
-
avocado potato
-
Out side of scenarios what will it bring too the main arenas in there current format? Don't get me wrong I like anything new added into the game & this plane deserves it's place, I just don't see what you can bomb that you can't do with the current bomber list.
-
Out side of scenarios what will it bring too the main arenas in there current format? Don't get me wrong I like anything new added into the game & this plane deserves it's place, I just don't see what you can bomb that you can't do with the current bomber list.
Well, it will bring a few new FSO events. But in the main arena, diversity!
-
Well, it will bring a few new FSO events. But in the main arena, diversity!
If I was to guess for a one answer word for inclusion? Diversity is good enough. :aok
-
Not having the B-29 on AH is like not having P-51s or 109s.
yeah right....good try tho.
-
There's plenty of work to be updated with the remainder of the planeset still on Aces High 1 asthetics & modeling.
-
Why does everyone freak out about a THREAD involving the B-29 :huh. Next AKP is gona post that "No B-29 for you" picture up. Its a DISCUSSION people. Weather on not we get a B-29 won't be decided by these threads, and by whoever screams loudest. If this were the 'whatever you post in here, were putting in the game' forum, then I could see a point to the slugging matches that stem from someone even talking about the B-29 :furious. But it's not.
Sorry it took so long :D Here ya go!
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
-
Because there are more inportant planes that should be added first, that will give more flexibility in FSOs etc, for instance..HE111, some more Japnese Planes etc.
-
Because there are more inportant planes that should be added first, that will give more flexibility in FSOs etc, for instance..HE111, some more Japnese Planes etc.
Yes, He-111 is another big AC along with a few IJ planes that are needed. Oh and the B-29 too.
-
Seriously though... I think the point has been made over and over again why some of us dont think there should be a B-29 in the game. Why do I post the Soup Nazi with his B-29? Because MOST of the B-29 posts out there are just "Gimme Gimme Gimme"... and I decided that the kittens need a break. :D There are very few serious discussions about it... and then you have the whole "Me wantz teh No0kie" crowd... that always tag along onto a B-29 thread.
While I agree that it does meet the criteria for inclusion in AH2, these are the problems I see with adding it:
1) It was the single most powerful weapon in WW2, excluding the atomic bomb. The firepower even one can carry is more than most, it not all of the 3 bomber formations that we have in the game now. HiTech has said in other threads, on other topics, that there is a fine line between realism, and playability. I think that the B-29 crosses that line. While is it a perfectly realistic addition to the game, it has the serious potential to make the game less playable, and less fun. There are many other WMD's and weapons platforms that were in WW2 that have not, and I seriously doubt, will be added. Tall Boys, V1's, V2's, Kamikaze's, Landmines... were all used in WW2... but I doubt they would bring much overall fun to the game, and would detract from the ability to effectively play. The B-29 is the same way. The ability to wipe a town or base off the map in one pass, by one player, is not going to help the game at all in my opinion. We dont have an organized, rigid command structure like the military has. No one HAS to follow the orders of their teammates. So, the player that just wants to drop a base, cv group, town, or even just "lancstuka" a whole division of tanks with his B-29 has no reason not to. On this same point, B-29's woult not be used in this game like they were in the war. They would be used just as described above. Not for the long range, strategic bombing of cities as they were designed to do.
2) Perks... Every time there is a discussion about the B-29, the supporters just say "Perk the Hell out of it!" Well, here is the problem with that. Most of the experienced bomber pilots in this game, and the ones who would be flying the B-29, have more Bomber Perk points than they will EVER be able to use. I realize that is partly due to there be a limited selection of bombers that require perks, so you just keep building and building them. But... what it means is that guys like 999000, myself, and other guys that have the perks to fly them, can do so with impunity, whenever, and wherever we feel like it. Will we get shot down? Not that often... and not if it is used like we would use it. Not as a "lancstuka" or on an NOE raid... but high level, and in formations... thereby adding to the perks we already have. But, even if we did use it in unrealistically silly ways... we could afford to do so. So, the only people who would be restricted in flying the B-29 would be the new players... and those that dont normally fly bombers. Add to this the defensibility of the B-29. Good bomber pilots and gunners can tear up fighters... even multiple fighters with the guns we have now. Do we really need something better? Combine that with the altitude that we would be flying them at, and there is NO PLANE... no... not even the 262, that could get up to us to engage by the time they realize we are coming, we drop our payload, and are GONE. True, that does not take into account making multiple passes at a target. But in a B-29? Why would you need to?
3) The point that people make about there being other planes that need to be added first is 100% valid. The LW plane set is far heavier than the EW or MW. There are many other planes, vehicles and systems that should be added first. But again, it comes down to playability and fun... and the time it takes to add things to the game. Not really much more I can add to this point. I think it speaks for itself.
4) Opponents - While AH2 allows us to fight against aircraft we normally would be allied with, there are few fighters that will be able to challenge the B-29 when it is in its true element... high altitude. The key is that you would have to know it was coming. Yes, you would be able to see a "Dar Bar" in the adjacent sectors for a LONG TIME... but not too many fighter pilots are going to take the time to get that high, for that long, and even if they do... they are going to have to either pack a ton of fuel, or have to land before the 29's even get there. To kindof go back to point #1, the B-29 was the pinnacle of weapons development during the war... so there wasnt much that could challenge it. Yes, there were losses of 29's during the war. But there were more losses to mechanical failure than there was to actual combat according to most sources.
5) Changing the specs on the B-29 to make it less powerful, not do what it did in the war, not function the way it did, but still look like a B-29... I see no reason to do so. Why bother? If it doesn't perform like the B-29, then its just an over-modeled Lancaster or B-24. We have those already. If HTC is going to take the time to model a B-29, then it need to FLY and FIGHT like a B-29. So yes, the guns would need to operate like a B-29, the payload would need to be what a B-29 could carry. Speed, armament, climb rate, ceiling... all the same. And yes, as has been pointed out... we would need longer runways, which would require a remodel of the current bases, or at the very least, the addition of a new base type.
Now... I would... and I cant believe I am saying this... actually LIKE to see the B-29 in the game. But, with that said... I do not believe the game as it is now, would be better off for having it. I think quite the opposite. In order for the B-29 to be added, there should (as many have previously stated) be MANY other elements added to the game. You want the B-29? Give us a REAL STRATEGIC BOMBING SYSTEM. Not what we have now. Give us more flexible troops. More flexible task groups and ships. Artillery. Bridges we can actually capture and drive a PT or a LVT under. Convoys. Roads that mean something. Ground speed affected by terrain. Fill out the Japanese and Russian plane sets. Add more ground vehicles. The list goes on and on. But until THESE things are added, I do not see the need for the B-29.
I think the B-29 has been asked for, and asked for, and asked for enough on the forums. Will it stop? No. But why not do this? Instead of posting it here, only to be tossed in the bucket with all the other B-29 threads to be answered by the masses with NO or my "Soup Nazi" pic, just send an IM or email to HiTech. Get HIS take on it. Let him tell you, out of the public fray, why he thinks it shouldn't, or SHOULD, it wont, or dare I say, it WILL be added to the game. Get it straight from him. WE arent the ones who will decide ANYTHING that gets added to the game. HTC is. Just ask the man. You may not get the answer you like, or the answer you expect... but I bet you will get an answer. (Sorry HiTech... if your inbox gets flooded with B-29 questions now, it's my fault!) Maybe the Skunkworks at HTC is secretly developing the B-29 and no one knows it.
So... there are the reasons why I dont think we should have, or need the B-29. Oh... and just to make you smile, and to let you know I am not bashing, flaming, or devaluing the argument of those that WANT the B-29 in the game:
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
So until we get answers to all the questions and concerns I have listed above... get used to seeing this guy, and everyone else who opposes the idea, telling you no... we dont want it. The request itself is valid... but the CONSTANT requesting isnt going to get it into the game. But keep em coming... I like my "Soup Nazi". He makes me giggle.
:salute
-
Sir JPEG, where art thou?
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
-
I'd see what happens. I thinkin +1 -1
-
1) It was the single most powerful weapon in WW2, excluding the atomic bomb. The firepower even one can carry is more than most, it not all of the 3 bomber formations that we have in the game now. HiTech has said in other threads, on other topics, that there is a fine line between realism, and playability. I think that the B-29 crosses that line. While is it a perfectly realistic addition to the game, it has the serious potential to make the game less playable, and less fun. There are many other WMD's and weapons platforms that were in WW2 that have not, and I seriously doubt, will be added. Tall Boys, V1's, V2's, Kamikaze's, Landmines... were all used in WW2... but I doubt they would bring much overall fun to the game, and would detract from the ability to effectively play. The B-29 is the same way. The ability to wipe a town or base off the map in one pass, by one player, is not going to help the game at all in my opinion. We dont have an organized, rigid command structure like the military has. No one HAS to follow the orders of their teammates. So, the player that just wants to drop a base, cv group, town, or even just "lancstuka" a whole division of tanks with his B-29 has no reason not to. On this same point, B-29's woult not be used in this game like they were in the war. They would be used just as described above. Not for the long range, strategic bombing of cities as they were designed to do.
Yes, but honestly, most of the pilots are going to bomber vets with massive ammounts of perks accruing in your accounts. If it were to be perked on, say, a 250 perk level, and I mean when things are going down the crapper for your country. Normaly it should be perked around the 500 perk area. I think that will keep the fly boys who occasionaly fly a bomb for a change out, along with about half the bomber guys. And honestly, some of the people who DO fly it, aren't going to use it to take out bases. Some are going to be like 3 perks above the required level, and go after cities, and factories, and such, so they can KEEP flying it.
2) Perks... Every time there is a discussion about the B-29, the supporters just say "Perk the Hell out of it!" Well, here is the problem with that. Most of the experienced bomber pilots in this game, and the ones who would be flying the B-29, have more Bomber Perk points than they will EVER be able to use. I realize that is partly due to there be a limited selection of bombers that require perks, so you just keep building and building them. But... what it means is that guys like 999000, myself, and other guys that have the perks to fly them, can do so with impunity, whenever, and wherever we feel like it. Will we get shot down? Not that often... and not if it is used like we would use it. Not as a "lancstuka" or on an NOE raid... but high level, and in formations... thereby adding to the perks we already have. But, even if we did use it in unrealistically silly ways... we could afford to do so. So, the only people who would be restricted in flying the B-29 would be the new players... and those that dont normally fly bombers. Add to this the defensibility of the B-29. Good bomber pilots and gunners can tear up fighters... even multiple fighters with the guns we have now. Do we really need something better? Combine that with the altitude that we would be flying them at, and there is NO PLANE... no... not even the 262, that could get up to us to engage by the time they realize we are coming, we drop our payload, and are GONE. True, that does not take into account making multiple passes at a target. But in a B-29? Why would you need to?
While, as you say, good gunners can tear up fighters, I doubt the 262's and 163's casualty lists will spike in any huge way. As for your concerns about the formation, why not disable formation? You can't take a formation of B-25H's (While I admit not mostly due to the 75mm), I think that would work here. The cannon would probably make up for about 1 and 1/2 of the drones missing, and the bomb load would be lower than that of a formation of B-24's and lancs, and slightly more than a formation of B17's an Ju88's.
3) The point that people make about there being other planes that need to be added first is 100% valid. The LW plane set is far heavier than the EW or MW. There are many other planes, vehicles and systems that should be added first. But again, it comes down to playability and fun... and the time it takes to add things to the game. Not really much more I can add to this point. I think it speaks for itself.
Yes we need more EW and MW planes. But not a HUGE ammount. To be honest, I don't think we really WANT a defiant in the EW arena.
4) Opponents - While AH2 allows us to fight against aircraft we normally would be allied with, there are few fighters that will be able to challenge the B-29 when it is in its true element... high altitude. The key is that you would have to know it was coming. Yes, you would be able to see a "Dar Bar" in the adjacent sectors for a LONG TIME... but not too many fighter pilots are going to take the time to get that high, for that long, and even if they do... they are going to have to either pack a ton of fuel, or have to land before the 29's even get there.
Yes, but if we make it worth peoples while to fly anti buff, then that might work. Say, double the perks you have for your first B-29, up to 5 perks, so you would have 10 if you killed even 1 B29. And after you kill a B-29, we could have it so you get 3 perks for every B-29 formation you kill.
-
LOL.... if they can keep posting that they want it, I can keep posting that I dont :D
Then its war..... :D. But serisouly, I think we should get the B-29 for a 1 week period, just to see if it really is apocalyptic.
-
I am all for the addition of the B-29. No nuclear weapons though. I think HTC understands that a portion of the population wants this plane added. However the duplication of the hundreds of other threads about this plane gets a...
(http://coreofgaming.com/files/images/forum_pics/useless_thread.jpg)
-
Ok, lets asked the staff of AH what there opinion of the B-29 being on AH.
What do you think Hitech?
-
I have a good fire suit you can wear....
-
There, that's better.
Can't see whay there needs to be 5 or 6 separate discussions for one plane model.
-
There, that's better.
Can't see whay there needs to be 5 or 6 separate discussions for one plane model.
Well, what is HQ opinion on it?
-
I have nothing to do with plane selection.
-
Skuzzy just mixes the drinks.
-
Skuzzy says...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ay9VJUft2tE/R-pnQCBa_nI/AAAAAAAAASI/VP8ULPNGcCE/s320/I%2Bknow%2Bnothing.jpg)
-
Skuzzy says...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ay9VJUft2tE/R-pnQCBa_nI/AAAAAAAAASI/VP8ULPNGcCE/s320/I%2Bknow%2Bnothing.jpg)
Oh, he may know something. :noid
-
Then its war..... :D. But seriously, I think we should get the B-29 for a 1 week period, just to see if it really is apocalyptic.
Ok... lets just say that they DO give us the B-29. It isnt going to be a 1 week trial of a plane that is just "kinda" like it. I would bet that it would be included in a major update, and would have a beta trial... so the true in game capabilities of the 29 could be determined. They will also need to fix any bugs (oh yes... there will be bugs), and see what we who love to break the toys they give us to play with will do to it, and what ridiculous tactics we will employ with it.
Trust me on this... they are not going to to take the time to model a plane, and toss it in amongst us for 1 week to see if it works. Nope, IF we ever get one, its a long way off, is going to take a LOT of work by HTC, and will take some serious time in a Beta arena to test. Until then...
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
War you shall have... :lol
-
I agree, lets change this thread mood to "lets make fun of the B29 geeks cause they'll never have it" :D
-
Skuzzy says...
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ay9VJUft2tE/R-pnQCBa_nI/AAAAAAAAASI/VP8ULPNGcCE/s320/I%2Bknow%2Bnothing.jpg)
Sir JPEG scores again. :lol
-
Ok... lets just say that they DO give us the B-29. It isnt going to be a 1 week trial of a plane that is just "kinda" like it. I would bet that it would be included in a major update, and would have a beta trial... so the true in game capabilities of the 29 could be determined. They will also need to fix any bugs (oh yes... there will be bugs), and see what we who love to break the toys they give us to play with will do to it, and what ridiculous tactics we will employ with it.
Trust me on this... they are not going to to take the time to model a plane, and toss it in amongst us for 1 week to see if it works. Nope, IF we ever get one, its a long way off, is going to take a LOT of work by HTC, and will take some serious time in a Beta arena to test. Until then...
AKP, while I may sympathize with some of you sentiments not present in your post, I must disagree, I think it would be easier to give a B24 a B29's preformance, bomb load, armament, and range, and change the shape so it looks like a B29, and, as long as there are no major bugs (such as flaps not moving, rudder disapearing, etc.), base their decision of weather or not we should get this plane, on the results of the test, and lack of mayhem. I doubt HTC wants to take time to designe a B-29's shape, dementions, armament, preformance, etc, only to decide the B29 is a bad idea and waste months of work.
-
AKP, while I may sympathize with some of you sentiments not present in your post, I must disagree, I think it would be easier to give a B24 a B29's preformance, bomb load, armament, and range, and change the shape so it looks like a B29, and, as long as there are no major bugs (such as flaps not moving, rudder disapearing, etc.), base their decision of weather or not we should get this plane, on the results of the test, and lack of mayhem. I doubt HTC wants to take time to designe a B-29's shape, dementions, armament, preformance, etc, only to decide the B29 is a bad idea and waste months of work.
Well we will just have to agree to disagree then. I cant see them making an "ad-hoc" version of it, and see what it does and how it works. What I do see, is that if we ever get it, they will model and test it as completely as they can in house, release a beta including the b-29, and let the beta testers find the bugs and issues they may have missed. At that point it would not be a question of if we were getting it... it would be a reality. The only issues remaining would be smoothing it out.
I also dont see them adding the b-29 with as many things as they want and need to do before that could and would ever happen... oh, and its not on his list either :D
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,269831.0.html
I will give the soup guy a break on the rest of this thread, he's been working overtime. Have to get him rested up for the next B-29 thread that I am sure will appear in the next week or so. :salute
EDIT: Oh... and I still think you should just ask HiTech and see what his thoughts are. Can't hurt.
-
What is worse?
Asking for the 29........... Or asking for the Ar 234C-3 or the Ar 234P-5?
It really comes down to the overall game doesn't it? Plenty of gv's and fighters to spend perks on. But the bomber category is laughable. And nobody wants to be laughing at HTC.
Just give us another perked bomber for crying out loud. How about the Ju 287....... Oh wait, only 2 of those.
-
Here's my thoughts on the B-29s.
I honestly wouldnt mind seeing the 29 added to AH. But as AKP said, the strat objects need to be larger and have some sort of meaning. If it was my choice the 29 would be added, perked around 200 per plane, be launchable from 3 bases per side (the uncapturable bases)with only a runway launch and have an ENY value of 3. So while killing things in it will be effective, but not worth many perkies.
Just my thoughts.
-
Here's my thoughts on the B-29s.
I honestly wouldnt mind seeing the 29 added to AH. But as AKP said, the strat objects need to be larger and have some sort of meaning. If it was my choice the 29 would be added, perked around 200 per plane, be launchable from 3 bases per side (the uncapturable bases)with only a runway launch and have an ENY value of 3. So while killing things in it will be effective, but not worth many perkies.
Just my thoughts.
I say we just do away with the formation for this plane. There is no option for a formation for the B25H, or the TBM, both of which are bombers. As for the strat issue, I say we have it so bombing a factory directly affects bases. If you bomb, say, a fule refinery, then as trucks come to the bases, and when the base ups, then if you destroyed 75% of the refineries, then only 25% fule would be avalable for bases being supplied by that factory. And we should have bridges you can destroy for 5 mins, causing the convoys coming to that base, from that factory, to wait 5 minutes everytime the bridge is blown.
-
That is the silliest thing you have ever said brother Bish.
I say we just do away with the formation for this plane. There is no option for a formation for the B25H, or the TBM, both of which are bombers.
-
I say we just do away with the formation for this plane. There is no option for a formation for the B25H, or the TBM, both of which are bombers.
Your comparrison does not hold water, the 25H is an attacker really, no bombsite, no glass nose, and the TBM is a carrier based aircraft. The 29 should be treated like a Ar234. Perhaps the perks per plane should be closer to 300.
-
But then it becomes an aircraft limited to expirenced bomber pilots who WILL wipe a base off the face of the earth. Some will lancstuka with it, salvoing for 20 1000lb bombs, to drop ONE hanger. Others will use it properly, but not calibrate correctly, wiping a gun emplacment and a decent stretch of grass off the face of the earth. Some will attack cities to ensure they can KEEP using it. I think 250 is good.
-
I say we just do away with the formation for this plane. There is no option for a formation for the B25H, or the TBM, both of which are bombers. As for the strat issue, I say we have it so bombing a factory directly affects bases. If you bomb, say, a fule refinery, then as trucks come to the bases, and when the base ups, then if you destroyed 75% of the refineries, then only 25% fule would be avalable for bases being supplied by that factory. And we should have bridges you can destroy for 5 mins, causing the convoys coming to that base, from that factory, to wait 5 minutes everytime the bridge is blown.
As was just pointed out, there are valid reasons why the 25H and the TBM are not available in formation. And what you are saying about changing the way strat targets effect the game, and adding bridges that mean something is just the kind of thing I have been trying to say... Those things need to happen (and several others) before we even think about getting the 29.
If it were ever brought in, it should be available in formations just like the other heavies are... and just like the 234 is. I like what 5PointOh said about limiting where they can fly out of, and giving them an ENY of 3.
But as for getting it anytime soon? I just dont think we, or the game, is there yet.
-
+1 for B-29! :cool:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/B-29_Bomber_on_a_long_range_mission_in_late_1945.jpg)
-
HTC has been flying the B29 for about 2 years now. They just don't let us fly it. :salute
But as for getting it anytime soon? I just dont think we, or the game, is there yet.
-
HTC has been flying the B29 for about 2 years now. They just don't let us fly it. :salute
Hehe... see, they know not to let the children play with big boy toys!
-
Here ya go boys...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,273567.0.html
I will let the Stratowishers draw their own conclusions about where this might go... but it's a step in the right direction, and would be the perfect mission for the 29.
-
:D :aok
Here ya go boys...
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,273567.0.html
I will let the Stratowishers draw their own conclusions about where this might go... but it's a step in the right direction, and would be the perfect mission for the 29.
-
As was just pointed out, there are valid reasons why the 25H and the TBM are not available in formation.
Ok, I will accept that. I just don't think using "its just to powerfull" as an excuse for not getting it, as there are ways to get arround that. I, personally, just want the B-29 so I can fly it. I don't want an uber base destroyer, My squad and I wiped a base off the face of the earth last week. BTW, it was 3 sectors away from the nearest base, so so our mission had practicly NO stratigic pouropus. One of our members was leaving so we felt like destroying something.
And what you are saying about changing the way strat targets effect the game, and adding bridges that mean something is just the kind of thing I have been trying to say... Those things need to happen (and several others) before we even think about getting the 29.
Agreed.
If it were ever brought in, it should be available in formations just like the other heavies are... and just like the 234 is. I like what 5PointOh said about limiting where they can fly out of, and giving them an ENY of 3.
Thats like adding bailed pilots bazookas with 2 rds that can knock out a tiger at .3k and saying it would be too powerfull, and saying you can only use it for 100 perks, only when you have 10 bases left, and can only be used when taking off from the front bases.
-
Thats like adding bailed pilots bazookas with 2 rds that can knock out a tiger at .3k and saying it would be too powerfull, and saying you can only use it for 100 perks, only when you have 10 bases left, and can only be used when taking off from the front bases.
Considering you could never fit a bazooka in a fighter aircraft in a place accessible during bailing, and that that's more that twice the effective range of a WWII bazooka, which had to be operated by a crew of two, I would say that those would be at very least fair restrictions...
-
Considering you could never fit a bazooka in a fighter aircraft in a place accessible during bailing, and that that's more that twice the effective range of a WWII bazooka, which had to be operated by a crew of two, I would say that those would be at very least fair restrictions...
I belive vehicles were operated by a crew of more than one, so we can operate a bazooka with only one person. so how about if when ther hangars are down or the field is being capped by gv's we actually walk out of the tower with a bazooka and start blasting away. wont that be fun. or maybe just walk up to a tank and drop a granade or two in the hatch.
semp
-
now this thread is just gettin silly
-
now this thread is just gettin silly
I am waiting on HighTech responding to my question.
-
Has there ever been a poll on the B-29?
Seems like we as paying customers should get what we what, no matter what the reasons are that we cant have the bomber.
It would be a beautiful addition.
-
Or Whataburger. Just like you like it.
Sweeb
-
if, and its a big IF the b-29 comes, no incendiaries, and no nukes.
-
I agree no nukes. Incindearys are a nother subject that can't be tied to this one.
-
I agree no nukes. Incindearys are a nother subject that can't be tied to this one.
We know what Nemesis wants....
Gee man, we could have avoided this entire headache if you just got to the point! :D
-
if, and its a big IF the b-29 comes, no incendiaries, and no nukes.
incendiaries have been talked about for F6F and F4U.
-
We know what Nemesis wants....
Gee man, we could have avoided this entire headache if you just got to the point! :D
Hey, half the time I'm the one there gona be getting droped on.
-
I am probably not the first to request this airframe but I hope I will be the last.
How many of you find that you have hundreds, if not thousands of unused bomber points? I do; along with my wingmen in the 510th. If we instated a B-29 into the mix (orange and blue arenas) we could have a really nice perk bomber that can fly high and fast and carry up to 20,000 lbs in bombs... I think that this would make bombing even more fun and 3 flights of B-29s would bring about great devastation to an airbase.
Worried about bomber pilots having too much power and tipping the scales in their favor? Being so devastating would make them very high priority targets. Many of us have taken off, loaded with ords for our target, climbed up to 12k or so, and spotted a multi-flight of LANCS headed toward our base. Most of the time we would drop ords and engage them, and I believe that most pilots in the game would do the same. This concept would be the same for B-29s but even more so because of their destructive power. Nobody would want Superfortresses hitting your base so there would be calls to bring them down. Another option to bring down their overpowering use would be to hike up the perk point value by a considerable amount so they are not used very often. There could also be a great amount of points given to any fighter that takes them down.
The end result would indeed change the game a bit. Yes there could be more team radars dropping off line from HQ attacks and yes there could also be more base captures per hour than there are now. It would speed up the game a bit but it could also present a new form of tactical fighting. The legitimate form of bomber hunting. Players may now find themselves upping 110's or 190's with extra fuel with the primary focus of bringing down bombers and not just quick base takes. I have done this with my squad mates on several occasions just for fun and and just about every sortie, if you study the map, you will run into an enemy formation of bombers.
Let me know what you guys think and if it all seems like a good idea then I think I will submit a more formal request to Hi tech Creations. Thanks
-Vonshiza
-
:lol You must be new. Good post though. Have you discovered the search tool yet? Do a search for B-29 and you will find thousands of requests. Get ready for people making fun of this thread. :old:
-
I am a little new to the forums indeed and I have just seen some of the posts for B-29s. I realize there have been many posts for this airframe now but the more requested the bigger Hi Tech will think of the idea and has anyone actually drafted up a full detailed idea like mine? All I have seen are posts like "WE NEED THE B-29" or "a B-29 would be so flippin awesome!" If we are more to the point and professional about it, presenting both known pros and cons, we might get the airframe. The overall consensus I have seen is that everyone wants the B-29. Just a thought.
-
"Worried about bomber pilots having too much power and tipping the scales in their favor? Being so devastating would make them very high priority targets."
Not really...
"Many of us have taken off, loaded with ords for our target, climbed up to 12k or so, and spotted a multi-flight of LANCS headed toward our base."
B-29's are going to be seen at 25+ K AT LEAST, you know this right?
"Most of the time we would drop ords and engage them, and I believe that most pilots in the game would do the same. This concept would be the same for B-29s but even more so because of their destructive power. Nobody would want Superfortresses hitting your base so there would be calls to bring them down.
One of my primary arguments against the "B-29's will destroy the servers!!!!!" crowd. Hogs, P-47's Ta152's and others can catch the B-29 at alt. in addition to the 262 and 163's. Likely, B-29s will be heavily outnumbered by newbs trying to get perks, and by the people who realize they can catch B-29s instead of shouting their heads off. Heres a simulation of what the people who realize that will say: "Dang, I'm in a fighter. Oh wait, I'm the faster one. Got those mixed up for a second".
"Another option to bring down their overpowering use would be to hike up the perk point value by a considerable amount so they are not used very often. There could also be a great amount of points given to any fighter that takes them down."
I've suggested this before. I think it will work, but hey, theres more expirenced players than I.
"The end result would indeed change the game a bit. Yes there could be more team radars dropping off line from HQ attacks and yes there could also be more base captures per hour than there are now."
IDK, it seems that every time I pull an HQ raid the bases close by are 163 bases that are heavily patroled for some reason.
It would speed up the game a bit but it could also present a new form of tactical fighting. The legitimate form of bomber hunting. Players may now find themselves upping 110's or 190's with extra fuel with the primary focus of bringing down bombers and not just quick base takes.
Well DUH...
Over all, I give YOU a -10 on the post (one of those "add teh B-29 cus I want it :rock" thread), but give the B-29 a +100.
-
:rofl
Please lock this thread.
-
quick, someone put up the indiana jones "in before the lock" pic...
-
lock it now (http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/brayidur/b29request.jpg)
-
Guys! I just got hold of super-secret footage of the B-29 hitech plans to show at the con! You are NOT gonna believe how sweet it looks!
B-29 Test Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxnWl63Avo4)
Watch for the n00k at 1:39!
-
Guys! I just got hold of super-secret footage of the B-29 hitech plans to show at the con! You are NOT gonna believe how sweet it looks!
B-29 Test Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxnWl63Avo4)
Watch for the n00k at 1:39!
lmfao nice rick roll sax almost got me, but ive used that link before, or one similar
-
Why'd you have to go and spoil it?
:D
-
knowing the newbs who see b29 vid they will droll and klick, and not even pay attention to us but since ull try to shoot me down now :bolt:
-
Don't worry Sax, I clicked it. :)
For the record I knew it was a joke, I just didn't know what to expect.
-
lol (:lol) nice sax :aok.
-
I am probably not the first to request this airframe but I hope I will be the last.
-Vonshiza
(http://ui08.gamespot.com/263/facepalm_2.jpg)
-
Okie Dokie... Got it. Don't suggest any airframe... ever... cuz it's been done b4. :bolt:
-
Okie Dokie... Got it. Don't suggest any airframe... ever... cuz it's been done b4. :bolt:
Ad Nauseum.....
They just added the P-47M. It wasn't requested over and over and over and over and over.
But it was requested more than once.
Too many bomber perks? Waste 'em.
Do an AR234 sweep.
Up the entire squad and shut down a base with a good furball going on.
Dive bomb GV's.
Use your imagination.
wrongway
-
Okie Dokie... Got it. Don't suggest any airframe... ever... cuz it's been done b4. :bolt:
No, the B-29 gets special attention this way.
You made an honest approach for a forum newbie. You didn't just say "B-29 Superfortress" in the title and then "Add it!" in the text body. You actually made a post advocating it. Unfortunately so many people have requested it in bad faith that B-29 requests get this response.
Had you asked for, say, the Me410 or Beaufighter the response would have been much friendlier even though both of those have been asked for before.
Sorry to see you get a nasty response to a well intentioned post.
-
B-29's are going to be seen at 25+ K AT LEAST, you know this right?
I seriously doubt that. If anything it will take over as the NOE king for base takes. Very few people have the time to climb it up to 25K, only a few dedicated people will do that.
-
I seriously doubt that. If anything it will take over as the NOE king for base takes. Very few people have the time to climb it up to 25K, only a few dedicated people will do that.
If it's going to be highly perked, which if it actually came to the game it would be, people will take it up to 25k, at least. People would learn quickly or burn up perks quickly if they continuously took them under something like 15k. For me, it'd be 30k+.
-
No! Wait! He is on to something (this time)! Let them have the B-29 at a perk value of say... 30000 perks. :x
-
I am probably not the first to request this airframe but I hope I will be the last.
you're not the only one... :)
-
If it's going to be highly perked, which if it actually came to the game it would be, people will take it up to 25k, at least. People would learn quickly or burn up perks quickly if they continuously took them under something like 15k. For me, it'd be 30k+.
At 23960 feet the B-29 slows to 100 feet per minute with a standard bomb load (15000 lbs) and with maximum internal bomb load (20000 lbs) her service ceiling is even lower. That translates to an hour to climb from 24000 to 30000 feet and with the fuel modifier you wouldnt get there.
The 'Little Boy' weighed less than half the maximum internal load (about 8800 lbs) and thats how Enola Gay got to 31600 feet over Hiroshima.
-
At 23960 feet the B-29 slows to 100 feet per minute with a standard bomb load (15000 lbs) and with maximum internal bomb load (20000 lbs) her service ceiling is even lower. That translates to an hour to climb from 24000 to 30000 feet and with the fuel modifier you wouldnt get there.
The 'Little Boy' weighed less than half the maximum internal load (about 8800 lbs) and thats how Enola Gay got to 31600 feet over Hiroshima.
So do you want it or not...because if what you say is true it wont be as invincible as I thought it was honestly. One question, what battles were B-29s used in, I have only really heard of them hitting Japanesse mainland
-
think they were only used in the pacific theater, i seen on a few docs they were GOIN to be used in europe but i believe they were pretty much all used in the pacific cause of the great distances of the islands they were hopping to.. but what do i know? +1 superfortress
-Gambit :salute
-
:aok
-
You people are slipping. Look how long it took someone to post this.
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
For shame.
-
So do you want it or not...because if what you say is true it wont be as invincible as I thought it was honestly. One question, what battles were B-29s used in, I have only really heard of them hitting Japanesse mainland
Korea & I think that might be about it? Not to sure.
-
You people are slipping. Look how long it took someone to post this.
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
For shame.
Probably because he didn't actually ASK for the nuke, so that smart-assed graphic wasn't necessary.
-
bronk, atleast i got the kitten at gunpoint up quick and..... ITS PEANUT BUTTA JELLY TIME PEANUT BUTTA JELLY TIME, WHERE YA AT WHERE YA AT NOW THERE YOU GO THERE YOU GO PEANUT BUTTA JELLY PEANUT BUTTA JELLY :banana:
-
Probably because he didn't actually ASK for the nuke, so that smart-assed graphic wasn't necessary.
Awfully centrist of you. :rofl
-
I am probably not the first to request this airframe but I hope I will be the last.
I doubt you will be the last.
At the amount we have already...that is a minuscule fraction compared to what it will be.
-
So do you want it or not...because if what you say is true it wont be as invincible as I thought it was honestly. One question, what battles were B-29s used in, I have only really heard of them hitting Japanesse mainland
The B-29 served in India and China long before it ever saw the first Pacific island. The pilots ferried their planes from mainland U.S. to India via South America and Africa. They always had problems with the engines running hot so its a mystery why they chose to use them in the Pacific rather than in Europe but there you go. Once in China they began raids into Japan and for five months no other aircraft could even reach the Japanese. One year after the first B-17 raids began on targets in Europe there were one-hundred B-29s hitting Japan from China but engines overheating kept ten-percent from striking their targets. Engine heat and fires plagued this plane throughout its history. The longest mission I ever read about was 3900 miles (round trip) with a standard internal load.
Crazy as it seems LeMay ordered crews to stop bombing runs from 30000 feet and to hit targets with incendiary bombs (maximum internal load) from low altitude at night and without defensive guns. Even after great success the Japanese did not surrender and so Operation Silverplate came about.
What I said is true about the ceiling but as you know fighters in the game can go much higher and even with the range of the B-29 it will not be untouchable. The problem is that once it is introduced (not that it ever will be) the whining for nukes will never stop. I can see Hitech using this plane only once maps in the arena are even larger than they are now.
-
Chalenge,
They stopped the high-altitude bombing runs because the jet stream was wreaking havoc with accuracy, even worse than the problems faced by bomber crews in Europe. One tactic didn't work, so they switched to a different one. If the low-altitude raids failed, I'm sure they would have looked for some other approach.
-
Von,
Don't listen to the old grumpy crowd. Your wish was nicely composed, and you put some good thought into it. No shame in that. You pay your 15 bucks like the rest of these guys, so continue to wish. With over 3000 B-29s delievered, I'm sure it made more of an impact than some of the other LW WWII bombers. Anyway as much as I'd like to see the 29 in AH, there are many other planes that should be taken care of first.
But I commend you on your effort.
-
Chalenge,
They stopped the high-altitude bombing runs because the jet stream was wreaking havoc with accuracy, even worse than the problems faced by bomber crews in Europe. One tactic didn't work, so they switched to a different one. If the low-altitude raids failed, I'm sure they would have looked for some other approach.
Correct and what I said did not include all of the details in LeMays decision (and a few details unrelated) but it was still accurate for what I said.
-
[...] The overall consensus I have seen is that everyone wants the B-29. [...]
I don´t want it!
--------------------
Just curious: If (!!!!) HTC will bring in this monster-uber-bomber, how about the runways. Do they have be longer for starting and landing? Do the hangers should be repositioned, because of the wingspan? I just think, that the current airfields in AH are not suitable for a B-29.
Regards
SF
-
I don´t want it!
--------------------
Just curious: If (!!!!) HTC will bring in this monster-uber-bomber, how about the runways. Do they have be longer for starting and landing? Do the hangers should be repositioned, because of the wingspan? I just think, that the current airfields in AH are not suitable for a B-29.
Regards
SF
I think they have already dealt with this w/ other bombers making them only be able to lift from the longer of the runways :salute
The B-29 served in India and China long before it ever saw the first Pacific island. The pilots ferried their planes from mainland U.S. to India via South America and Africa. They always had problems with the engines running hot so its a mystery why they chose to use them in the Pacific rather than in Europe but there you go. Once in China they began raids into Japan and for five months no other aircraft could even reach the Japanese. One year after the first B-17 raids began on targets in Europe there were one-hundred B-29s hitting Japan from China but engines overheating kept ten-percent from striking their targets. Engine heat and fires plagued this plane throughout its history. The longest mission I ever read about was 3900 miles (round trip) with a standard internal load.
Crazy as it seems LeMay ordered crews to stop bombing runs from 30000 feet and to hit targets with incendiary bombs (maximum internal load) from low altitude at night and without defensive guns. Even after great success the Japanese did not surrender and so Operation Silverplate came about.
What I said is true about the ceiling but as you know fighters in the game can go much higher and even with the range of the B-29 it will not be untouchable. The problem is that once it is introduced (not that it ever will be) the whining for nukes will never stop. I can see Hitech using this plane only once maps in the arena are even larger than they are now.
Combantantly served or is that just the route they took to get to the pacific theater...what im getting at is that is...Why do planes have to fill in events spots such as FSO? I know alot of people who dont participate in events because of their schedules(Ive only been to 3 and my sqaud of 50+ doesnt particpate). I think the planes introduced should be more on amount wanted(by the community via these wishlists) and amount used in WW2....just seems right since the majority fly in the LW arenas 90% of the time, seems to me that birds needed for certain events are made first, but this is just a personal opinion...im ranting sry :salute
-
Here is the trailer for the upcoming documentary on the 444th Bomb Group that was the first unit to operate B-29s from India against the Japanese in Asia and then China against SE Asia and finally Tinian against the home island. This was posted in February 2009 and no I dont think the final film is finished yet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tqahpOCcD3w
-
I don´t want it!
--------------------
Just curious: If (!!!!) HTC will bring in this monster-uber-bomber, how about the runways. Do they have be longer for starting and landing? Do the hangers should be repositioned, because of the wingspan? I just think, that the current airfields in AH are not suitable for a B-29.
Regards
SF
And with a flick of a switch or some 1's and 0's in the right place, HTC can make the B29 do what it wants. Just like flying pt boats, fokker's, and sharks.
-
YIKES!!! This post was up for 3 days before I got to it....
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
-
Need to start counting the days apart of b-29 threads
-
On average, 14 days. :D
For reasons as shown below, the B-29 won't be arriving soon.
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1424/stugs.jpg)
-
what game is that?
-
BRING ON THE B-29! :rock
-
what game is that?
You sir, are looking at the future of history. :D
-
Now that the game has more hard points defined for bombs and rockets it is possible to finally add the Superfortress. The problem is the noobs will never stop asking for the nuke and so the B-29 (unfortunately) will never be in AH. :(
-
One solution would be to make it ACT like the real bomb.
You better climb to 32,000ft. And then once you drop it, better dive and pull around VERY hard to get enough separation, or else *POP*
Then make the B-29 a 500-perk plane.
-
On average, 14 days. :D
For reasons as shown below, the B-29 won't be arriving soon.
(http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/1424/stugs.jpg)
Come on, every one know B-29 and nukes are different wishes.
-
Have you never heard the phrase 'give them an inch and they will take a mile?'
-
Yeah, but thats a hell of a big mile..... Hell of a big inch too. Lets face it, unless hitech decides to add them just to make this one post wrong, we are NEVER getting nukes....
-
I gotta agree that it's just as simple as leaving the nuke out. We don't have incendiary bombs for a reason, we don't have those big dam busters for a reason, we wouldn't have a nuke for a reason.
We don't have the B-29 for a reason too but I wouldn't say the nuke is the reason why.
-
I gotta agree that it's just as simple as leaving the nuke out. We don't have incendiary bombs for a reason, we don't have those big dam busters for a reason, we wouldn't have a nuke for a reason.
We don't have the B-29 for a reason too but I wouldn't say the nuke is the reason why.
wow, someone who isn't a member of the "Give us the B-29!!!!!!" crowd agrees with me on something related to the B-29.
-
What i am wondering is, who ever wished the B-29 with nukes in the first place? Two dam atomic bombs where used by it and all the sudden we have people that are afread to have the B-29.
OK, so what if we do get it. For those that protest it, are you going to quit AH, whine all the time about it, or suck it up and accept it that we have it?
-
No one is afraid of the B-29 in fact I will post a bet on it right now. When HTC adds the B-29 (if they ever do) I will show you how to kill one so easy it will make your head spin! :neener:
You can volunteer to be the pilot even. :D
-
No one is afraid of the B-29 in fact I will post a bet on it right now. When HTC adds the B-29 (if they ever do) I will show you how to kill one so easy it will make your head spin! :neener:
You can volunteer to be the pilot even. :D
Be glad to be the ginny pig experiment on how to take down a B-29. :salute
-
Be glad to be the ginny pig experiment on how to take down a B-29. :salute
Sounds like fun. B-29 killin'
:cheers:
-
No one is afraid of the B-29 in fact I will post a bet on it right now. When HTC adds the B-29 (if they ever do) I will show you how to kill one so easy it will make your head spin! :neener:
You can volunteer to be the pilot even. :D
I've always said it would be pretty easy to kill. Hey, does anyone know why everyone wines that nothing can catch it at alt? Really you can't intercept a B-24 at alt. anyway (assuming you are starting out on the runway).
-
Yes you can... but you cant use the noob 'default climb' mode.
-
If it is so easy to take down the B-29, then why do people not want it?
-
If it is so easy to take down the B-29, then why do people not want it?
Because about half of us mistakenly think it will kill the game play....
-
For the same reason they dont want fields closed... they like the mindless never-ending furball.
-
And that in and of itself isn't the game, a major part of the game, I'm willing to admit, but air to air combat isn't the only aspect of this game. If all you want to do is furball, ask HTC to create a furball arena.
-
And that in and of itself isn't the game, a major part of the game, I'm willing to admit, but air to air combat isn't the only aspect of this game. If all you want to do is furball, ask HTC to create a furball arena.
If thee B-29 kill the game playing, so dose many other AC. But yes, get a separate arena for furball....oh wait, we have the DA for that.
-
If thee B-29 kill the game playing, so dose many other AC. But yes, get a separate arena for furball....oh wait, we have the DA for that.
Ohh wait you can bomb toolsheds in there also... pffft.
-
If thee B-29 kill the game playing, so dose many other AC. But yes, get a separate arena for furball....oh wait, we have the DA for that.
Yeah, but it seems many are unwilling to use the dueling arena.
-
Yeah, but it seems many are unwilling to use the dueling arena.
Edited so you can see the irony of it all. :rolleyes:
-
Edited so you can see the irony of it all. :rolleyes:
lol
-
You mean bombs and other ord isnt turned off in the DA? :rofl
-
You mean bombs and other ord isnt turned off in the DA? :rofl
Nope, but surely AH to do something about that.
-
Really? 5 pages so far on yet another B-29 wish post? :huh
I'm to the point I really dont care if we get it or not... ( <---- flys in mid war anyway). I just want the freekin B-29 wishes to stop. I "think" HTC knows some of you want it.
-
Really? 5 pages so far on yet another B-29 wish post? :huh
I'm to the point I really dont care if we get it or not... ( <---- flys in mid war anyway). I just want the freekin B-29 wishes to stop. I "think" HTC knows some of you want it.
I am probably not the first to request this airframe but I hope I will be the last.
Well if this is the last B-29 post we have to make it last!! :banana:
-
I seriously doubt that. If anything it will take over as the NOE king for base takes. Very few people have the time to climb it up to 25K, only a few dedicated people will do that.
...You're nuts...
Personally, if I just wasted, oh, say 200 perks, I'd be making sure my crate got back home. I'd be up at 33k going 357mph (true stats) with my 20mm tail gun doing the talking to the poor fighter that tried to keep up with me... As I've said SO many times, the b-29 would throw the AH world off its mantle... well, it would unbalance the game drastically, a single b-29 could completely cripple MULTIPLE airbases (all hangers, and probably the town as well).
-
No a single B-29 could close a field and a formation could close three fields. But you are looking at it wrong because climbing to 30k the B-29 would only have 10000lbs in bombs. No one is going to use a B-29 to bomb hangars because its like a deer volunteering to stand out in a corn field lit by stadium lights (i.e. your going to get killed). However... it would allow for a single formation to destroy HQ at the risk of being killed even without the nuke and after that it would be free to climb all it wanted.
-
However... it would allow for a single formation to destroy HQ at the risk of being killed even without the nuke and after that it would be free to climb all it wanted.
I think this is really where the B-29 would see most use in the arenas, as a strat buster. ESPECIALLY if HTC is really revising the strat targets to look like those massive city pics that float around here occasionally.
-
...You're nuts...
Personally, if I just wasted, oh, say 200 perks, I'd be making sure my crate got back home. I'd be up at 33k going 357mph (true stats) with my 20mm tail gun doing the talking to the poor fighter that tried to keep up with me...
If the B29 faced it real opponents and not the whole planeset I might agree,however that isnt the case in AH so there would be several planes that would easily overtake the 29 at that alt.Also Challenge is correct,a well placed shot to the cockpit and PooF there goes your B29 and all the perks it cost!
:salute
-
Morf... are you thinkin what I'm thinkin?
Ta152 vs B29
-
No a single B-29 could close a field and a formation could close three fields. But you are looking at it wrong because climbing to 30k the B-29 would only have 10000lbs in bombs. No one is going to use a B-29 to bomb hangars because its like a deer volunteering to stand out in a corn field lit by stadium lights (i.e. your going to get killed). However... it would allow for a single formation to destroy HQ at the risk of being killed even without the nuke and after that it would be free to climb all it wanted.
Why can climb to 30k with only 10k of bombs? And if its like a deer standing in a corn field then the Gov't and media are covering up for a lot of killed hunters. Yeah bases will probably be patroled by Bf110G2's, Fw190A8's, and anything that can catch a bomber and carries at least 4 MG's, but when ever my squadies and I pull a raid, we fly in a tight formation of at least 3 bombers and when we fly with the whole squad, we fly in a group of 9 bombers in formation. I doubt the patrolling that will inevitably occur will stop the bombers.
-
A Bf 110G nor an Fw 190A-8 would stand a chance of intercepting a B 29 at 30k. They can barely maintain level flight at that altitude.
-
fly above that, stay there till fules almost out, fly down and land. Thats usually how you patroll.....
-
fly above that, stay there till fules almost out, fly down and land. Thats usually how you patroll.....
Perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying. It's literally difficult to maintain altitude at that altitude with the planes you mentioned, let alone fight anything. I don't think the 110 is even capable of reaching 30k.
-
s
-
Yeah bases will probably be patroled by Bf110G2's, Fw190A8's, and anything that can catch a bomber and carries at least 4 MG's, but when ever my squadies and I pull a raid, we fly in a tight formation of at least 3 bombers and when we fly with the whole squad, we fly in a group of 9 bombers in formation
I find it funny you ignored the one fighter purpose built for high-altitude bomber killing which I happened to mention just before your post.
-
Nemisis the B-29 would burn all its fuel before reaching 30k if it has a full bomb load (20k). With a 10k load it can reach 30k and it can even go a little higher but it will not do it quickly. There are plenty of fighters in this game that can go higher than a B-29 can go and bombers too. I fly that high in both roles (fighter and bomber) and I think I understand just how to take out formations.
-
There are plenty of fighters in this game that can go higher than a B-29 can go and bombers too.
The later-model P-47s for sure, the M would certainly be an ideal 29 interceptor with its heavy armament and high-altitude performance. The P-38s, F4Us, P-51s, Spit XIV and Ta-152 also all have the high-altitude performance to intercept the 29.
-
Put 5 RATOs on the b-29.. make it unrealistic :O
-
Put 5 RATOs on the b-29.. make it unrealistic :O
...
Why?
:huh
-
...
Why?
:huh
So you can at least have a chance of getting airborne off of our current runways.
-
Nemisis the B-29 would burn all its fuel before reaching 30k if it has a full bomb load (20k). With a 10k load it can reach 30k and it can even go a little higher but it will not do it quickly. There are plenty of fighters in this game that can go higher than a B-29 can go and bombers too. I fly that high in both roles (fighter and bomber) and I think I understand just how to take out formations.
Uhm... it would burn all its fuel?
B-29: Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
B-24: Combat range: 2,100 mi (1,800 nmi, 3,400 km)
B-29: Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
B-24: Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
B-29: Speed @ 33k 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
190A-8: Max speed 656 km/h (407.62 mph) at 4,800 m (15748 ft) with boost.
Hmm, the B-29s speed at 33k is only ~50mph slower than the 190s top speed with boost at its prime alt... :bolt:
-
Service ceiling on the B-29 IS NOT 33,600 feet it is 23,960 feet.
Yes it would burn all its fuel before it got to 30k. With a full bomb load of 20000 lbs (40x500 lbs) the service ceiling is something like 10000 feet below its maximum ceiling (when empty). At service ceiling the airplanes climb rate drops to 100 feet per minute and above that altitude the climb speed slowly drops to 0 feet per minute which is why you level at the service ceiling (also because otherwise you just waste fuel). There is nothing worse than plodding along trying to climb above your service ceiling and getting attacked by fighters because you will be hanging there at your climb speed and not at cruise speed.
These airplanes routinely operated at 25,000 feet with the maximum bomb load of forty 500 lb bombs and the last 1000 feet of climb must of been exhausting but many many more of these planes were destroyed by their own engines overheating trying to get there than the enemy ever shot down.
Also the one thing that really reduces the altitude is the amount of fuel the B-29 carries. With a maximum bomb load the fuel load must be reduced to avoid overloading the airframe. This is one airplane that would have to be taken into consideration and the worst thing a noob could ever do is load it with a max bomb load and 100 fuel on an elevated field.
-
Service ceiling on the B-29 IS NOT 33,600 feet it is 23,960 feet.
Powerplant:
Four Wright R-3350-23 Duplex Cyclone eighteen-cylinder air-cooled radial engines each with two General Electric turbosuperchargers, delivering 2,200 hp for takeoff and having a war emergency rating of 2,300 hp at 25,000 feet.
Performance:
Maximum speed 357 mph at 30,000 feet, 306 mph at sea level. Maximum continuous cruising speed 342 mph at 30,000 feet. Economical cruising speed 220 mph at 25,000 feet. Initial climb rate 900 feet per minute at combat weight. An altitude of 20,000 feet could be attained in 38 minutes. Service ceiling 33,600 feet. Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 10,000 pound bomb load. Practical operational radius was 1,600-1,800 miles. Maximum ferry range was 5,600 miles, rising to 6,000 miles with the extra fuel.
Weights:
74,500 pounds empty, normal loaded 120,000 pounds, maximum overload 135,000 pounds.
Dimensions:
Wingspan 141 feet 3 inches, length 99 feet 0 inches, height 27 feet 9 inches, wing area 1,736 square feet.
Armament:
Twelve 0.50-inch machine guns in four remotely-controlled turrets (two above and two below the fuselage) and in the tail, each with 1000 rounds of ammunition. In addition, early production blocks had a single rearward-firing 20-mm M2 Type B cannon with 100 rounds in the tail position. Later, two more guns were provided for the forward top turret. Maximum internal short-range, low-altitude bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 15000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at high altitude. A load of 17,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at medium altitude.
A few more sources...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-29.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29_Superfortress (Check out the references at the bottom of the page...)
And my personal favorite...
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=527
Here's a quote from that last one...
December 1943 U.S. Army Air Forces leadership committed the Superfortress to Asia, where its great range made it particularly suited for the long over-water flights against the Japanese homeland from bases in China.
Hmm... Great range = running out of fuel in ~50 mins? Something seems off here...
:salute
-
A few more sources...
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bomber/b-29.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29_Superfortress (Check out the references at the bottom of the page...)
And my personal favorite...
http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=527
Here's a quote from that last one...
Hmm... Great range = running out of fuel in ~50 mins? Something seems off here...
:salute
From your own quote.
Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 10,000 pound bomb load.
:bolt:
-
I am not disputing that it can get that high but I am saying it wont get that high with max fuel and bombs loaded. 20,000 lbs is a lot of weight and my statement is not in conflict with the way things work in AHII. Take a B-24 loaded with just 3/4 fuel and 8,000 lbs and it wont get above 27,000 feet before you give up trying to climb higher even though the plane can go to 35k which is much higher than the B-29 its just a waste of fuel to try to climb higher.
With a 10,000 lb bomb load of course it can go further and higher and yes the engines can be used at lower power settings because of the lighter load. In AHII you wont be using a lower cruise setting though and your fuel will go faster.
-
Perhaps you don't understand what I'm saying. It's literally difficult to maintain altitude at that altitude with the planes you mentioned, let alone fight anything. I don't think the 110 is even capable of reaching 30k.
Yes, I thought you were saying the climb rate sucked so bad, no one would bother climbing that high. But either way, there are a number of heavily armed A/C that can catch the B-29 and shoot it down without undue difficulty.
-
I think I understand just how to take out formations.
I wasn't saying it would be impossible to take out a group of more than 2 bombers. All I was saying is that its not going to be a milk run for the fighters...
-
guys, this post FAILS, so FAIL, no really, FAIL!!! :noid
-
From your own quote.
Maximum range was 3250 miles at 25,000 feet with 10,000 pound bomb load.
:bolt:
Let's assume that the range is half that for a full bomb load (which would be ridiculous...)
And then take into account the 2x fuel burn in the MA.
Max range would be 812.5 miles. Which is longer than flying from the lower left to upper right hand corner of a large map.
-
That isnt the point at all. The point is you may well arrive at your target and have plenty of fuel but you most certainly will not be at the maximum ceiling of the B-29 since you have too much fuel onboard AND the heaviest bomb load it can carry. This is very easy to verify by loading a Lancaster with its heaviest load and 25 fuel and then also loading it with 100 fuel and its heaviest load. The 25% loadout will not only get to altitude faster it will get to a higher altitude. Not only do you not have the patience to get to 30k in a heavy Lancaster but it cant get to 30k no matter how much patience you have. Once you drop the bombs its a completely different story.
As far as range is concerned yes the range is severely decreased by loading heavier bombs and the effect of a heavier load is made worse the higher you climb because you use more fuel and cut the range ever and ever more. Fortunately the effect of overworked engines doesnt effect planes in AH or you would never make it period. B-29s had a really bad problem with engine fires when the engines got overheated and there isnt a bomber pilot in the game that uses engines realistically (and why should they?). But in the real B-29 the engine fires would ignite an accessory housing made of magnesium and this would burn so intensely that the spars would burn through and the wings would fail (crewmen had fifty seconds to get the flames out or bailout within ninety seconds).
-
That isnt the point at all. The point is you may well arrive at your target and have plenty of fuel but you most certainly will not be at the maximum ceiling of the B-29 since you have too much fuel onboard AND the heaviest bomb load it can carry. This is very easy to verify by loading a Lancaster with its heaviest load and 25 fuel and then also loading it with 100 fuel and its heaviest load. The 25% loadout will not only get to altitude faster it will get to a higher altitude. Not only do you not have the patience to get to 30k in a heavy Lancaster but it cant get to 30k no matter how much patience you have. Once you drop the bombs its a completely different story.
As far as range is concerned yes the range is severely decreased by loading heavier bombs and the effect of a heavier load is made worse the higher you climb because you use more fuel and cut the range ever and ever more. Fortunately the effect of overworked engines doesnt effect planes in AH or you would never make it period. B-29s had a really bad problem with engine fires when the engines got overheated and there isnt a bomber pilot in the game that uses engines realistically (and why should they?). But in the real B-29 the engine fires would ignite an accessory housing made of magnesium and this would burn so intensely that the spars would burn through and the wings would fail (crewmen had fifty seconds to get the flames out or bailout within ninety seconds).
That's what I was getting at. Thanks
-
It's time to pull the plug on this topic and let it die.
-
Heres an idea,
Lets try it, 2 weeks, B29 in game no perks or nothing.
After 2 weeks pull the plane out and have a poll of wether or not to keep it.
We could argue all day and night, lets just try it..it wouldn't hurt anything to try it out for 2 weeks, if its a bad idea then no harm done.
-
No.
-
Heres an idea,
Lets try it, 2 weeks, B29 in game no perks or nothing.
After 2 weeks pull the plane out and have a poll of wether or not to keep it.
We could argue all day and night, lets just try it..it wouldn't hurt anything to try it out for 2 weeks, if its a bad idea then no harm done.
If they're gonna go to the trouble of including the b29 it might as well leave it there. so basically give it up, concentrate on the a26 better :x. I'll never understand this high altutue buff flights u guys talk about, I usually dont fly higher than 5.5k for cv or 8k for base in b26. I hardly miss either target and make it home 7 out of 10 times unless i run out of fuel. seems i only carry 25% I am not willing to spend more time that that in a buff :).
semp
-
I dont think any of us have trouble finding bombers that fly that high.
http://www.4shared.com/file/143982289/79cb9474/33kLancs.html
-
Fortunately the effect of overworked engines doesnt effect planes in AH or you would never make it period. B-29s had a really bad problem with engine fires when the engines got overheated and there isnt a bomber pilot in the game that uses engines realistically (and why should they?). But in the real B-29 the engine fires would ignite an accessory housing made of magnesium and this would burn so intensely that the spars would burn through and the wings would fail (crewmen had fifty seconds to get the flames out or bailout within ninety seconds).
What the HELL! Really, the didn't know magnisum is flamible?
-
If they're gonna go to the trouble of including the b29 it might as well leave it there. so basically give it up, concentrate on the a26 better :x. I'll never understand this high altutue buff flights u guys talk about, I usually dont fly higher than 5.5k for cv or 8k for base in b26. I hardly miss either target and make it home 7 out of 10 times unless i run out of fuel. seems i only carry 25% I am not willing to spend more time that that in a buff :).
semp
this is why you just wont understand
-
this is why you just wont understand
there's hardly a target in most maps that u cannot reach there and back with only 25% fuel. and u are right I dont understand why u wanna make a simple flight into an allnighter, but then again its your time. only target where u will need lots of fuel is the hq raid, which its considered a waste of time by most people but then again, its your time u invest.
semp
-
Hitech has said he is changing the zones and hopefully the 'STRAT'egy as well. I believe those long bomber runs will have more effect. By the way... I fly bombers long range usually while Im eating breakfast or lunch and usually its a one hour sortie. I dont think its possible for it to take 'all day.'
-
BRING ON THE B-29!
-
It is nice to see so many intimidated by one plane, Historicaly its a good bomber, but it leads to the a bomb? Only in the end my friends, Sounds like fighter jocks, don't want competition for scores. or perhaps they fear the reaper?
"20,000 Lbs, 2 Bombays Later and its miller time."
-
do you play the game,....I'll just call you pirate, or did you just see a comercial or something and come here?
-
theres one word i need to say... but i forget what it is... Oh YEAH!!! its the word NO! nonononononononono no no no... B29's too...well its just too good. and when i cant 262 a plane i kinda get annoyed :joystick: :banana: dance banana dance
-
Way I see it, B-29 is the 262 of bombers. If we get an uber fighter for 200 perks, why not an uber bomber? Really, the 262 has more than enough firepower to deal with a B-29. You can't really say too many people have too many bomber perks to make perking effective, when a lot of those people also have comprable numbers of fighter perks.
-
the B29 can fly higher than the 262, which would let it outrun it too. itd be unstoppable
-
Yes, but it can't climb that high with a full bomb load, as pointed out in another thread (I think, it might be in this one, but while back). And unless it has a higher celing than any other plane then its not unstopable. Its just difficult, same as with the 262.
And unless I completly forgot what the 262's speed at its max alt, then 400 wouldn't be enough to outrun it, and, again unless i forgot what the A/C's top speed was, the B-29's speed was below 400.
-
a 262 top speed drops very quickly the higher you go, says 400 but actually its more like 150 up round 30k. B17s go faster than me
-
OK, I've never taken a 262 up that high. I assumed it was the same as the charts showed.
-
It is nice to see so many intimidated by one plane, Historicaly its a good bomber, but it leads to the a bomb? Only in the end my friends, Sounds like fighter jocks, don't want competition for scores. or perhaps they fear the reaper?
"20,000 Lbs, 2 Bombays Later and its miller time."
This thread was dead! You brought it back, and you should be ashamed.
-
:lol :lol :lol :lol :bolt:
-
B29 gives you a message yes now why dont we have the b29 i dont care for the big bomb just have like the regular load it had besides the big bomb and if you half to put it in the game then add a perk value to it we have the 262 dont we its a jet it has a big perk value why cant you just put a perk value on the b29 realy the b29 is like the most known bomber of ww2 out there and if we have a vote on a new plane i vote the b29
-
:confused:
Getting out of here.
:bolt:
-
:confused:
Getting out of here.
:bolt:
ditto
:bolt:
-
The best known bomber of WWII is the B-17 followed closely by the He-111 or Stuka depending on where you live.
I just had to make that little fact known. :aok
-
Lancaster and Halifax are better known here. :uhoh
-
Not to be the grammar police...but aside from being a run-on sentence...that isn't even a sentence!
-
Possibly its not in here because it flys 350mph with 20,000lb of bombs. Three boxes of B29, 180,000lbs of bombs. Call the goon in after one pass over a base. Kinda like the A26 Invader can do 370mph at sea level and pull turns with fighters with more 50.cal than god in the nose.
-
B29 gives you a message yes now why dont we have the b29 i dont care for the big bomb just have like the regular load it had besides the big bomb and if you half to put it in the game then add a perk value to it we have the 262 dont we its a jet it has a big perk value why cant you just put a perk value on the b29 realy the b29 is like the most known bomber of ww2 out there and if we have a vote on a new plane i vote the b29
Go back to school and stay awake this time through English class.
-
blah blah blah etc...
google: "punctuation"
-
Not to be the grammar police...but aside from being a run-on sentence...that isn't even a sentence!
:rofl
-
perk teh b-29 (80perks per plane) an make it only be able to take off from within atleast 4 sectors of safe territory. so once the war gets down to nitty gritty they will be disabled (no nukes required)
p.s. c'mon.....c'mooooooooon
-
Sigh, here we go again.....
NOPE!
Sorry, it just isn't gonna happen. If you want proof, search, B29, and see what you can find! :devil
-
Ya mean we isn't owr big burdy in this here game??
-
B29 gives you a message yes now why dont we have the b29 i dont care for the big bomb just have like the regular load it had besides the big bomb and if you half to put it in the game then add a perk value to it we have the 262 dont we its a jet it has a big perk value why cant you just put a perk value on the b29 realy the b29 is like the most known bomber of ww2 out there and if we have a vote on a new plane i vote the b29
irefusetoanswerquestionsthata reputinsuchanilleteratemanner andwhichdonotevenpretendtouse properspellingandgrammartosay nothingofpunctuation!
-
B29 gives you a message yes now why dont we have the b29 i dont care for the big bomb just have like the regular load it had besides the big bomb and if you half to put it in the game then add a perk value to it we have the 262 dont we its a jet it has a big perk value why cant you just put a perk value on the b29 realy the b29 is like the most known bomber of ww2 out there and if we have a vote on a new plane i vote the b29
(http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/5231/dumbz.jpg)
irefusetoanswerquestionsthatareputinsuchanilleteratemannerandwhichdonotevenpretendtouseproperspellingandgrammartosaynothingofpunctuation!
That made me laugh so hard...
-
The best known bomber of WWII is the B-17 followed closely by the He-111 or Stuka depending on where you live.
I just had to make that little fact known. :aok
The only thing that the B-29 is know for is dropping the atomic bomb. Sadly, most people do not realized that it was the only land base bomber to bomb Japan most of the war.
-
Here we go...
Ready, set, GO!!
-
7 b29 threads in the past month. well at least the banana dances :banana:., actually I think the banana has a better chance of winning dancing with the stars, that the b29 coming to ah anytime soon.
dance baby dance :banana:
semp
-
While there are certain misgivings about the Superfortress, I believe that it will eventually be added to the game just like many other airplanes have been. :furious No grumpy, you've no place here in this thread. There are many new faces here in AH and those of us veterans :old: with ties to the AH beta way back when will have to admit that planes we never thought should be added were in fact added :furious Stop it grumpy, I told you, this isn't the place for you. Go find a Corrs thread. The most recent example is the P-47M. Way too many people poo-poo'd it as a "super" plane or one that shouldn't be added but since it's been there, I still see many :joystick: :airplane: To date, it hasn't been that much of an influence in gameplay and I doubt the 29 will either :bolt:
HTC will have no trouble NOT coding the A bomb :furious Damnit grumpy, I said NO! One Option is that HTC can, by design, limit the bomb load to 10,000 lbs and fill one of the bomb bays with fuel tanks like the original sometimes did without an in game option to remove them. The Lanc holds 14,000 now and that'll do some real damage to any airbase. Even if HTC decided to allow the full bomb load of 20,000 lbs, the trick to laying waste to any field is actually getting there. I relish seeing bombers at 15-17K...most times, they're targets and not really much of a threat (depending on who's flying them). Not many will bother to fly the forts to their best operational altitude as it takes over an hour in any bomber to get to 30+ K. I predict that if added, even as a perk ride, it will initially see much use but will die off just like many of the other aircraft have after being added; people returning to their old standbys. Yes the thing is fast at altitude. My specs say 375 mph but doesn't tell me at what altitude. I bet it's over 30,000 ft. We've got guys that fly that high in 17's, 24's and lancs now...and even an odd Ki-67 or three. I'd like to see it fly in the game :bolt: but I also see the arguement of those who are of the opposite opinion. A 51 or M jug will have no trouble catching a superfort at that altitude...if someone wants to bother. Pinpoint accuracy from that altitude is tough but can be achieved, I've done it regularly. I don't know if it's coded or not, but it seems to be tougher to bomb hangars from 30K because the bombs seem to separate and I end up putting eggs around the hangar isntead of on it. The only way I achieve results is to pickle multiples on any given target, reducing the amount of possible damage that can be done to ensure a destroyed target. Let's not forget, hangars all come back in 15 minutes anyway, unless there's people standing by with support aircraft/vehicles, taking down hangars from a heavy bomber is a huge gamble as far as taking the field is concerned.
As far as defensive armament is concerned, we already have the "every gun that can fire, will" option on the bombers we have now. The B-29 actually has less defensive armament than does the B-17G (in the historical perspective). The 20mm in the tail that was standard equipment was often removed as the trajectory was not the same as the .50's. With that big tail, the upper turrets won't be able to bet trained on an attacker coming from 6 o'clock. Oh well, just my .02.
-
While there are certain misgivings about the Superfortress, I believe that it will eventually be added to the game just like many other airplanes have been. :furious No grumpy, you've no place here in this thread. There are many new faces here in AH and those of us veterans :old: with ties to the AH beta way back when will have to admit that planes we never thought should be added were in fact added :furious Stop it grumpy, I told you, this isn't the place for you. Go find a Corrs thread. The most recent example is the P-47M. Way too many people poo-poo'd it as a "super" plane or one that shouldn't be added but since it's been there, I still see many :joystick: :airplane: To date, it hasn't been that much of an influence in gameplay and I doubt the 29 will either :bolt:
HTC will have no trouble NOT coding the A bomb :furious Damnit grumpy, I said NO! One Option is that HTC can, by design, limit the bomb load to 10,000 lbs and fill one of the bomb bays with fuel tanks like the original sometimes did without an in game option to remove them. The Lanc holds 14,000 now and that'll do some real damage to any airbase. Even if HTC decided to allow the full bomb load of 20,000 lbs, the trick to laying waste to any field is actually getting there. I relish seeing bombers at 15-17K...most times, they're targets and not really much of a threat (depending on who's flying them). Not many will bother to fly the forts to their best operational altitude as it takes over an hour in any bomber to get to 30+ K. I predict that if added, even as a perk ride, it will initially see much use but will die off just like many of the other aircraft have after being added; people returning to their old standbys. Yes the thing is fast at altitude. My specs say 375 mph but doesn't tell me at what altitude. I bet it's over 30,000 ft. We've got guys that fly that high in 17's, 24's and lancs now...and even an odd Ki-67 or three. I'd like to see it fly in the game :bolt: but I also see the arguement of those who are of the opposite opinion. A 51 or M jug will have no trouble catching a superfort at that altitude...if someone wants to bother. Pinpoint accuracy from that altitude is tough but can be achieved, I've done it regularly. I don't know if it's coded or not, but it seems to be tougher to bomb hangars from 30K because the bombs seem to separate and I end up putting eggs around the hangar isntead of on it. The only way I achieve results is to pickle multiples on any given target, reducing the amount of possible damage that can be done to ensure a destroyed target. Let's not forget, hangars all come back in 15 minutes anyway, unless there's people standing by with support aircraft/vehicles, taking down hangars from a heavy bomber is a huge gamble as far as taking the field is concerned.
As far as defensive armament is concerned, we already have the "every gun that can fire, will" option on the bombers we have now. The B-29 actually has less defensive armament than does the B-17G (in the historical perspective). The 20mm in the tail that was standard equipment was often removed as the trajectory was not the same as the .50's. With that big tail, the upper turrets won't be able to bet trained on an attacker coming from 6 o'clock. Oh well, just my .02.
lol
-
B29 gives you a message yes now why dont we have the b29 i dont care for the big bomb just have like the regular load it had besides the big bomb and if you half to put it in the game then add a perk value to it we have the 262 dont we its a jet it has a big perk value why cant you just put a perk value on the b29 realy the b29 is like the most known bomber of ww2 out there and if we have a vote on a new plane i vote the b29
My eyes hurt. I guess proper punctuation is just ignored in elementary school these days.
-
I say we should have a B29.Yes you may say we wont people wanted it forever yah we wont get it no point in voting for it.Although hold on first of all big bomb no way if there has to be one then make it destory 1/4 of town lancaster can destory 2/3 of town in 1 pass so only fare.Have it carry around 20 1000 only 6 more then the lancaster.Realy just have it's orignal loadout that it had during WW2 i say 200 votes would put it in here and also if have the big bomb put a perk value on the plane between 10 and 20 any higher no one will fly it no point of having it on the game or just perk the bomb and only be able to have 1 bomber if you do 200 votes should do the trick.
-
I am stealth and i approve this topic +1
-
I am chewi and I say you cannot use the search function provided in this forum.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,276194.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272775.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258931.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233431.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,251120.0.html
I don't approve this topic -1 (because it has been brought up so many times).
and for the big bomb:
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
couldnt resist
-
I say we should have a B29.Yes you may say we wont people wanted it forever yah we wont get it no point in voting for it.Although hold on first of all big bomb no way if there has to be one then make it destory 1/4 of town lancaster can destory 2/3 of town in 1 pass so only fare.Have it carry around 20 1000 only 6 more then the lancaster.Realy just have it's orignal loadout that it had during WW2 i say 200 votes would put it in here and also if have the big bomb put a perk value on the plane between 10 and 20 any higher no one will fly it no point of having it on the game or just perk the bomb and only be able to have 1 bomber if you do 200 votes should do the trick.
Who said we get to vote for planes to be added? HTC did that once and it was a very restricted list of planes you could vote on, and no the B29 wasn't on the list. If you hang around for 10-25 years you might see it added, but not any time soon. There are far to many other planes to be added first.
-
Who said we get to vote for planes to be added? HTC did that once and it was a very restricted list of planes you could vote on, and no the B29 wasn't on the list. If you hang around for 10-25 years you might see it added, but not any time soon. There are far to many other planes to be added first.
What makes you think that there are other AC that need to be added first? However, I agree, it will be a while before we get it.
-
Before we ever get this plane we need to get more important planes first.
And after that we need to pad the planeset with planes that are able to destroy the 29.
A couple more jets, The Do. 335, and the F8F could do the trick.
Gotta balance everything out.
And perk it at 200.
-
Before we ever get this plane we need to get more important planes first.
And after that we need to pad the planeset with planes that are able to destroy the 29.
A couple more jets, The Do. 335, and the F8F could do the trick.
Gotta balance everything out.
And perk it at 200.
Please, tell me what jets other than the Meteor. F8F was post war IIRC.
-
Just a thought.
http://www.kidinfo.com/language_arts/grammar_helper.html (http://www.kidinfo.com/language_arts/grammar_helper.html)
or
http://www.jeanweber.com/newsite/?page_id=70 (http://www.jeanweber.com/newsite/?page_id=70)
Inf>
-
I am chewi and I say you cannot use the search function provided in this forum.
:rofl
If we get it or not, that's fine with me. I may take it out for a spin, but I'll be in my main ride, the mighty B-17. :airplane:
errr that is, whenever I get back to playing online. :uhoh
-
Before we ever get this plane we need to get more important planes first.
And after that we need to pad the planeset with planes that are able to destroy the 29.
A couple more jets, The Do. 335, and the F8F could do the trick.
Gotta balance everything out.
And perk it at 200.
What jets do we need to take it out? Nakajima Ki-201 was the Me 262 version but none produced.
Mitsubishi J8M was the Japs version of the Me 163. They knew that the B-29 was going to be a issue so they needed something that can up fast and clime high in short time. Only 7 built none saw action.
There are some IJ AC that we have that took on the on the B-29. Ki-84 but not sure which model. Kawasaki Ki-100 was the best AC that IJ had that showed good qualities against the B-29. Armed with 2 x 20mm and 2x 12.5 mm, great speed at high alt. but only 395 where built. It was equal the the P-51, La7 and Ki-84. ,
But for the most part, the Zero was the most produced AC the jap build and counter the B-29. Not sure the A6M6 had the ability to take on the B-29, A6M7 was designed for Kamikaze and A6M8 only had two prototype that could have been the most advanced AC for them.
Other IJ that was design to take on the B-29 not never saw action:
Nakajima Ki-87: had the ability to counter the B-29 with 2 x 30-mm. Only one build.
Rikugun Ki-93: was a twin eng, armed with 1× 57 mm Ho-401 cannon in ventral gondola and 2× 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wing roots. Only 2 produced.
The Ki-94: was designed as a high alt fighter to counter the B-29, but only one was produced at the end of the war.
Kyūshū J7W: a navy base AC that, i must say, advance design for its time. armed with 4 30mm cannon, max speed of +450, but only 2 build.
-
Anyway, we already have the 29 in-game:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/ah2b293.png)
-
Anyway, we already have the 29 in-game:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/ah2b293.png)
Ya, how can you people keep missing it?? I use it to blow up 3-4 large airfields in 1 run! :D
-
Please, tell me what jets other than the Meteor. F8F was post war IIRC.
I'm talking WAY later in the game.
At a point where hitech decides to add experimental planes to the mix.
Years from now.
But right now we need early war planes.
*cough* He 111 *cough*
-
I'm talking WAY later in the game.
At a point where hitech decides to add experimental planes to the mix.
Years from now.
But right now we need early war planes.
*cough* He 111 *cough*
Oh ok but I don't think he'll add experimental planes.
-
Its gonna be a while untill we pad the planeset enough to have a necessity for experimental aircraft.
And not experimental per say but flown prototypes. Not the late war Nazi-Nuclear powered-space planes.
-
I agree we should bring the a26 asap :D.
semp
-
I agree we should bring the a26 asap :D.
semp
Here we go! Anyway, we already have the 29 in-game:
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/ah2b293.png)
What are the statistics on that thing? speed? altitude? Bomb Load?
You get it after 3 years of playing right?
-
Seriously stealth, spend more time learning how to write at least at a literate level.
ack-ack
-
Did someone say P-61 :D
-
o well B29 or not still be fun to fly in the game more people would play to
-
Random question: has anyone seen a marked improvment of this kids grammar :noid?
-
I really do think we need B-29's, they are such a huge part of American History, not just because of the atomic bombs, but because they helped tremendously in the Pacific theater. I've toured FIFI the last B29 myself, and I really would love to fly it in the game.
-
Ya, how can you people keep missing it?? I use it to blow up 3-4 large airfields in 1 run! :D
Yeah I fly so high and fast no one can get an Icon on the B29. You just need to fly around at 35k more offen :rolleyes: I can't tell ya the perk price for them but it don't show up on the list till you have enough perks to fly it. So keep racking up those perks...you'll get there!
DuHasst
-
How fast can it go? (in the game)
-
Yeah I fly so high and fast no one can get an Icon on the B29. You just need to fly around at 35k more offen :rolleyes: I can't tell ya the perk price for them but it don't show up on the list till you have enough perks to fly it. So keep racking up those perks...you'll get there!
DuHasst
You have more problems with killing the 262, 163 and, to a lesser extent, the Ar234 than you would the B-29: fast, can't ususally catch one flying level.
There are fighters that can catch it, so that isn't the issue. The real problem is the the bombload and armament coulped WITH the speed. If all we were asking for was a faster lanc, I doubt there would be such a huge issue about it. But basicly what they want is a faster Ki67 carrying 20k of bombs.
-
and, to a lesser extent, the Ar234
Wanna test that theory?
-
*cough* He 111 *cough*
The following indigestion is supported by the committee for enhanced German arsenals.
-
The following indigestion is supported by the committee for enhanced German arsenals.
you mean the a26 :D. sorry guys his choking deprived him of air for a few minutes and got confused :D.
semp
-
Certainly you are aware human brains and mouths have a very close and distinct connection? In fact, medical research has proven our thoughts to be directly linked to our actions... If he was even remotely thinking about the A-26, it would have been mentioned upon the surfacing side-effects of his indigestion. Since it was not, this can only mean one thing... He truly was thinking about how a squadron of He-111s are easily overwhelmed by a single A-26.
The previous message was not approved by the committee for enhanced German arsenals.
-
Since this is a blow off thread anyway..... +1 for the B-52!!!!!! Conventional armament only, no nukes. :airplane: :neener:
-
Whats wrong with the B-29 why wouldn't you want it? NO NUKES !
-
:airplane: I also think if it was a plane or what ever in WWII it should be in here along with dams to blow up train bridges to hit and many other things to bring to life what men really had to do back then.
might care to stop the silly dar-bar as they call it and try better some how to keep hacks out and make it so all side are kept even and not supper scope on tanks and so many other hack and stuff i see each day!
But as Stealth has ask for and so do I and over two hundred others but just don't know how to ask for it the B-29 should be part of Our history in here of this game.
Thank you Duckdown the duck with teeth
P.S. would like to not just have out troops logo on our planes and tanks but also our own as long as the site team seems to find it is OK and not rude nor vine?
-
Whats wrong with the B-29 why wouldn't you want it? NO NUKES !
Why would anyone want another U.S. very late war bomber when there are so many other useful planes that could be added?
-
Why would anyone want another U.S. very late war bomber when there are so many other useful planes that could be added?
How can it be a very late bomber when it was put into action in May 1944, 1 1/4 years early before Japs quit?
-
Well, considering that first the B-29 was never used in the European theater...Germany surrendered in May of 45...the B-29 didn't see action until June of 44...about 11 months before the German surrender which effectively ended the war in Europe. Japan surrenderd in August of 45.
Considering military hostilities by Japan and Germany started in 1938...that's pretty late in the war.
-
must agree with the above, usually 44-45 is considered late war.. 42-43 mid and 39/40-41 early
-
Why would anyone want another U.S. very late war bomber when there are so many other useful planes that could be added?
More useful to who??
Why would anyone NOT want another U.S. very late war bomber?
-
More useful to who??
Why would anyone NOT want another U.S. very late war bomber?
Because not everyone is in to the whole UBER 1337 late war planes
-
I see "LW" as 44-45, but very late war as in the closing weeks of WWII.
-
I see "LW" as 44-45, but very late war as in the closing weeks of WWII.
:neener: August or May Spikes? :neener:
-
Because not everyone is in to the whole UBER 1337 late war planes
Well said, no really.
But on the other hand there are those that are!
Whose wishes are more important??
I guess that would depend on who you asked, wouldn't it.
-
There are fighters that can catch it, so that isn't the issue. The real problem is the the bombload and armament coulped WITH the speed. If all we were asking for was a faster lanc, I doubt there would be such a huge issue about it. But basicly what they want is a faster Ki67 carrying 20k of bombs.
To an extent...
The B-29 is a HIGH alt bomber, and extremly fast. We don't have very many planes that could match its speed at 35k. But for those that do, the 20mm tailgun is gonna say "hello" and knock you back into the tower right quick.
Absurdly high alt + High speed + 20mm Tail Gun + Astronomical bomb load = No matter how many damn perks it costs, I don't want it disrupting the gameplay...
-
Wanna test that theory?
Sure, but to what part are you reffering?
To an extent...
The B-29 is a HIGH alt bomber, and extremly fast. We don't have very many planes that could match its speed at 35k. But for those that do, the 20mm tailgun is gonna say "hello" and knock you back into the tower right quick.
Absurdly high alt + High speed + 20mm Tail Gun + Astronomical bomb load = No matter how many damn perks it costs, I don't want it disrupting the gameplay...
Of course. After playing some more. I have come to realize that right now , a B-29 would be devestating to game play. I was just tired of people going :its to fast, we can't catch it." and "It flys to high, no one flys up there", which both are untrue. We have planes that can catch it, and some people DO fly up that high.
-
The 234 being an easier kill than the 262. "or to a lesser extent" an easier kill.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png)
-
I am chewi and I say you cannot use the search function provided in this forum.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,276194.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,272775.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,258931.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,233431.0.html
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,251120.0.html
I don't approve this topic -1 (because it has been brought up so many times).
and for the big bomb:
(http://img88.imageshack.us/img88/6303/nookiejl1.gif)
couldnt resist
Chewi go study. :bolt:
-
Yes, simply due to a lack of forward firing guns, length of time it takes to get upto full speed, and the vulnerability it has when landing and just after take off (even though all planes have this, the 262 is a smaller target and, at least when I've flown it, doesn't seem to wallow quite so much when slow).
-
When I had the amt of perks to burn I always took off in a 234 on a semi-crowded base...usually when there were a few cons around...hit RATOs when I got off the runway and got speed as cons dove on me. Easy kills when they think you are the unwary pilot. Don't need forward firing guns, they'ed help me more, but I like the enjoyment of PM's asking how I killed them and how I am a cheater. Hell I even get guys say that I "cheerypick" them...
It is a great dogfighter if you use it's strengths to your advantage.
Looking up past scores I have 326 Ar234 kills in my "AH Career".
-
Ive seen the posts, heard the stories, and watched the fighting. Here it is in a nutshell.......IT WAS USED IN WWII! It was used more than the 262, it was used more than the 163. Who in their right mind would sit there and say it does not deserve to be in the game? Just because one person thinks it would be unfair due to the defensive firepower, that should be why we ban it from its rightful spot? So what, try being in a Spitfire with a 262 sitting on a perch about to "escort you to the ground". What about the difference in firepower then? All the excuses I have heard are just that, excuses. Yeah it may be used alot in the beginning but it would fade to a normal level. Try taking a larger bomber like that on a quick bombing run, you would opt for the 17, or 24, or Lanc. Point is this, the people who play want it in, I wouldnt mind having a go at it. Do what others have suggested and perk it to where you cant just grab it and go. Instead of fighting it, try putting it in and figure out how to use it.
-
Try taking a larger bomber like that on a quick bombing run, you would opt for the 17, or 24, or Lanc. Point is this, the people who play want it in, I wouldnt mind having a go at it. Do what others have suggested and perk it to where you cant just grab it and go. Instead of fighting it, try putting it in and figure out how to use it.
You would see more players opting to use the B-29 than any of the other bombers. Why? Bigger payload and it will get you there faster, regardless of the altitude. It would pretty much render all other heavy bombers in game hanger queens. Perking it won't help since there are a great deal of players (probably majority of the dedicated bomber pilots) that have so many bomber perks that they can take off in a B-29 (heavily perked like ME 262) and crash it on take off and reup another one until the cows come home and not make a serious dent in their perk points.
ack-ack
-
See Rule #6
-
-1 for the idea. B29 came in pretty late (1945) and the ordance is too heavy. Even if it would be added it would have to be perked 300+.
A pretty good reason why no NUKES!
(http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/4/1/633741621083268760-nukes.jpg)
:bolt:
more like 10000+ perked if it will be ever added (i hope to god it never is) cause got to think off all thos useless bobmer perkies
-
Yep. The guns on the B29 are also very good. NO fighter could destory it if it was added.
-
Yep. The guns on the B29 are also very good. NO fighter could destory it if it was added.
999000 would never lose a bomber.
He would be unkillable.
-
-1 for the idea. B29 came in pretty late (1945)
no ur a little off on that, the B-29 came in middle of 1944
-
eerr Vertex you might want to get rid of that F-Bomb (err bad pun)
-
Yep. The guns on the B29 are also very good. NO fighter could destory it if it was added.
2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service)
B-29s carried out around 33,000 sorties with a loss rate of 1.38% which meant that about 450 aircraft were lost with all or part of their crew (how many were lost over Japan I cannot say). 11,026 fighter attacks reported over Japan. B-29s claimed 714 destroyed, 456 prob and 770 damaged
-
You would see more players opting to use the B-29 than any of the other bombers. Why? Bigger payload and it will get you there faster, regardless of the altitude. It would pretty much render all other heavy bombers in game hanger queens. Perking it won't help since there are a great deal of players (probably majority of the dedicated bomber pilots) that have so many bomber perks that they can take off in a B-29 (heavily perked like ME 262) and crash it on take off and reup another one until the cows come home and not make a serious dent in their perk points.
ack-ack
The same can be said for the 262, you dont see everyone just hop into one of those all the time. Just put the plane in the game!
-
-1 for the idea. B29 came in pretty late (1945) and the ordance is too heavy. Even if it would be added it would have to be perked 300+.
A pretty good reason why no NUKES!
(http://pix.motivatedphotos.com/2009/4/1/633741621083268760-nukes.jpg)
:bolt:
Two thing: 1) remove your post before skuzzy see it. 2) B-29 came into service on May 1944, not 1945. 3) Why must a nuke come to mind with the B-29. Two lousy nukes where used, compared it to the tonnage of other ordnance they drop from June 1944 to August 1945.
Here is a comparative chart of other Bombers we have on AH. Bold indicates it out dose the B-29
B-29 B-17 B-24 Ki-76 Ar 234
Cruse Speed 220 mph 182 mph 215 mph -
Max Speed 357 mph 287 mph 290 mph 334 mph 467 mpH (19,700 ft)
Clime Rate 900 ft/min 900 ft/min 1,025 ft/min 1,476 ft/min -
Service Ceiling 33,600 ft 35,600 ft 28,000 ft/min 31,070 ft 32,800 \ft
Guns 10 x .50 cal, 13 x .50 cal 10 x .50 cal 1 x 20 mm, 5 x 12.7 mm 2 x 20 mm
2 x .50 and
1 x 20mm on tail
Ords Load 20,000 lbs 17, 600 lbs 8,000 lbs 2,360 lbs 3,309 lbs
How many produce + 3,000 +12,000 +18,000 676 210
-
The same can be said for the 262, you dont see everyone just hop into one of those all the time. Just put the plane in the game!
No it can't, apples and oranges really. The perk points is not the reason most don't fly the ME 262, most don't fly it because it's really not that easy of a plane to fly, or rather not that easy of a plane to shoot from. Low velocity cannon means you have to be a pretty good aim with it.
ack-ack
-
No it can't, apples and oranges really. The perk points is not the reason most don't fly the ME 262, most don't fly it because it's really not that easy of a plane to fly, or rather not that easy of a plane to shoot from. Low velocity cannon means you have to be a pretty good aim with it.
ack-ack
and if your not sure of yourself you will most likely auger it.
-
No it can't, apples and oranges really. The perk points is not the reason most don't fly the ME 262, most don't fly it because it's really not that easy of a plane to fly, or rather not that easy of a plane to shoot from. Low velocity cannon means you have to be a pretty good aim with it.
ack-ack
Yea, it is not that easy to fly. take off is slow, acceleration really slow unless diving, if you turn to hard at high speeds, wing come off, and lose a eng most likely crashing trying to land. Most of all, hitting something at high speed require a lot of skills and timing.
-
Yep. The guns on the B29 are also very good. NO fighter could destroy it if it was added.
Some people like a challenge to kill plane's like that.I know I would want to shoot one down.
-
No it can't, apples and oranges really. The perk points is not the reason most don't fly the ME 262, most don't fly it because it's really not that easy of a plane to fly,
ack-ack
And you think that trying to get something that is larger than any other bomber off the ground and fly it is easy? Look, we can do this all day long and you would never win. They need to put the plane in and deal with it then. :mad:
-
And you think that trying to get something that is larger than any other bomber off the ground and fly it is easy? Look, we can do this all day long and you would never win. They need to put the plane in and deal with it then. :mad:
How hard is auto-takeoff? :rolleyes:
-
When I had the amt of perks to burn I always took off in a 234 on a semi-crowded base...usually when there were a few cons around...hit RATOs when I got off the runway and got speed as cons dove on me. Easy kills when they think you are the unwary pilot. Don't need forward firing guns, they'ed help me more, but I like the enjoyment of PM's asking how I killed them and how I am a cheater. Hell I even get guys say that I "cheerypick" them...
It is a great dogfighter if you use it's strengths to your advantage.
Looking up past scores I have 326 Ar234 kills in my "AH Career".
I'm not disputing its dogfighting abillity, or its difficulty to kill. All I'm saying is line up the Ar234, 262, and the 163, then (usually, no accounting for personal prefferances and skill sets) you will die more often in the 234. Mainly due to the fact that if you want to kill someone, you have to keep him dead on your 6, and that the lower stess tollerances means you can't dive as fast to escape an attacker. I suppose you could dispute the rear firing guns issue due to the fact that they are 20mm's instead of the 30mm's.
-
And you think that trying to get something that is larger than any other bomber off the ground and fly it is easy? Look, we can do this all day long and you would never win. They need to put the plane in and deal with it then. :mad:
The Lancaster is by far the biggest bomber we have in the game and unless you're a completely and total idiot, it is very easy to take off from any base in it without having to use auto-take off. Any suggestion that the B-29 will be hard to take off without having to use auto-take off is really way off the mark. You may have troubles upping a heavy bomber without auto-take off but those of us that have a tad more experience will not experience the troubles you do.
Yes, we can do this all day long, I don't mind at all as I rather enjoy proving you wrong with each post. Care to make it a hat trick?
ack-ack
-
Why would you think it is hard to take off in a B-29? We do not even have it on AH yet you sound like we do and you could not take off with crashing.
Here is the powerplant of B-29:
4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
B-17:
4× Wright R-1820-97 "Cyclone" turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (895 kW) each
B-24:
4× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (900 kW) each
Lancaster:
4× Rolls-Royce Merlin XX V12 engines, 1,280 hp (954 kW) each
That is a lot of HP behind that B-29
-
Look, we can do this all day long and you would never win. They need to put the plane in and deal with it then. :mad:
No they don't. The B-29 is not needed in any manner...there are other planes that are actually needed which would require less work to incorporate than that uber bomber. There is no valid reasoning behind adding it, especially considering the numbers manufactured before the end of the war and the numbers used during it's roughly 13 months of WWII service. Of course there isn't much use for the AR-234 either...but it is perked, has a much smaller payload and for the most part it's a hangar queen. After more pertinent planes get added, then maybe...just maybe there might be a useful purpose for having another uber bomber...until then wishing for it is like wishing for battleships and submarines.
-
No they don't. The B-29 is not needed in any manner...there are other planes that are actually needed which would require less work to incorporate than that uber bomber. There is no valid reasoning behind adding it, especially considering the numbers manufactured before the end of the war and the numbers used during it's roughly 13 months of WWII service. Of course there isn't much use for the AR-234 either...but it is perked, has a much smaller payload and for the most part it's a hangar queen. After more pertinent planes get added, then maybe...just maybe there might be a useful purpose for having another uber bomber...until then wishing for it is like wishing for battleships and submarines.
There is more than enough reason why the B-29 should be added.
-
No they don't. The B-29 is not needed in any manner...there are other planes that are actually needed which would require less work to incorporate than that uber bomber. There is no valid reasoning behind adding it, especially considering the numbers manufactured before the end of the war and the numbers used during it's roughly 13 months of WWII service. Of course there isn't much use for the AR-234 either...but it is perked, has a much smaller payload and for the most part it's a hangar queen. After more pertinent planes get added, then maybe...just maybe there might be a useful purpose for having another uber bomber...until then wishing for it is like wishing for battleships and submarines.
Hmmm I think you need to do a little more searching of history. Seems that over 3,000 B29s were built. If you go by Boeings website, 3970 were built. Still I'd like to hear why everyone thinks its such an uber bomber? IMO the reason the 234 isn't flown often is because of the payload. Give the B-29 a 200 perk range, and go from there. I mean 600 perks for a for a formation. It wont be over used, but not under used.
B-29
Type: High-Altitude Heavy Bombing
Origin: Boeing
Models: Model 345, B-29 to B-29C
Crew: Ten to Fourteen
First Flight: September 21, 1942
Squadron Delivery: July 1943
Combat Debut: June 5, 1944
Final Delivery: May 1946
Production: 3,000+
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Powerplant:
Model: Wright R-3350-23 Duplex Cyclone
Type: 18-cylinder radials with 2 turbine driven
turbochargers
Number: Four Horsepower: 2,200
Dimensions:
Wing Span: 141 ft. 3 in. (43.05m)
Length: 99 ft. (30.2m)
Height: 27 ft. 9 in. (8.46m)
Wing Area: N/A
Weights:
Empty: 74,500 lb. (33,795 kg.)
Loaded: 135,000 lb. (61,240 kg.)
Performance:
Max. Speed: 357 mph (575 km/h)
Cruising Speed: 290 mph (467 km/h)
Climb to 25,000 ft. (7620m): 43 minutes
Service Ceiling: 36,000 ft. (10,973 m)
Range (With 10,000 lb. bombload):
3,250 miles (5230 km)
Armament:
Four GE Twin 0.50 in. in turrets above and below.
-Sighted from nose or three waist sighting stations.
Bell tail turret with one 20mm cannon and
two 0.50 machine guns.
Bomb Load:
Internal load of 20,000 lb. (9072 kg.)
AR-234
Type: Single-seat reconaissance bomber
Origin: Arado Handelsgesellschaft Warnedmunde
Models: Ar 234B & Ar 234C
First Flight:
Ar 234B-0: June 8, 1944
Service Delivery: September 1944
Final Delivery: N/A
Number Produced: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Ar 234B:
Two Junkers Jumo 004B axial Turbojets
Thrust: 900kg (1,980lb) thrust
Ar 234C:
Four BMW 003 axial Turbojets
Thrust: N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Span: 14.2m (46 ft. 3.5 in.)
Length: 12.65m (41 ft. 5.5 in.)
Height: 4.3m (14 ft. 1.25 in.)
Weights:
Empty: 5200kg (11,464 lbs.)
Loaded: 8410kg (18,541 lbs.)
Maximum with rocket take-off boost: 9850kg (21,715 lb.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance:
Maximum speed: 742km/h (461mph)
Ceiling: 10,000m (32,800 ft.)
Range on internal fuel (clean):
1630km (1,013 Miles)
Range with 3,300lb bomb load:
1,100km (684 Miles)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament:
Two fixed MG 151 20mm cannon in rear fuselage, firing to the rear and sighted by periscope (there is some speculation that this was never fitted to production models)
Bomb Load:
various combinations of bombs slung under fuselage and/or engines to maximum of 1500kg (3,300lb)
-
It is a simple face that people who do not want it really do not know their WWII history, especially when it comes to the B-29.
-
It is a simple face that people who do not want it really do not know their WWII history, especially when it comes to the B-29.
dood, i know muh historee teh be92 was juss the coolesst bumber in teh war tatz why we wunt it dood, becuz it dropped th nookz on te germunz in duh pahsiffuc.
-
No they don't. The B-29 is not needed in any manner...there are other planes that are actually needed which would require less work to incorporate than that uber bomber. There is no valid reasoning behind adding it, especially considering the numbers manufactured before the end of the war and the numbers used during it's roughly 13 months of WWII service. Of course there isn't much use for the AR-234 either...but it is perked, has a much smaller payload and for the most part it's a hangar queen. After more pertinent planes get added, then maybe...just maybe there might be a useful purpose for having another uber bomber...until then wishing for it is like wishing for battleships and submarines.
Ok, you want the end all reasons to add it? I am a paying customer and want it. It does not come down to what you think we need or your opinion on what we should have. This plane is iconic when you talk about WWII, funny I thought this game was about WWII! If they came to me and said if they get X amount of votes for it to be in the game I guarantee it would get them. There is a whole other level we can go to in all of the wants, but this one is a must.
-
See Rule #4
-
Ok, you want the end all reasons to add it? I am a paying customer and want it. It does not come down to what you think we need or your opinion on what we should have. This plane is iconic when you talk about WWII, funny I thought this game was about WWII! If they came to me and said if they get X amount of votes for it to be in the game I guarantee it would get them. There is a whole other level we can go to in all of the wants, but this one is a must.
The only thing this game has in common with World War II are the planes we fly in here, that's it. This game is not about World War II, it never has been and never will be. It's about fighting using World War II planes and ground vehicles and in no way attempts to recreate anything historical in relation to World War II.
Pyro in a post many years ago, way before you started to play, mentioned in a post why they are hesitant to add the B-29 and you want to know what that reason was? It was because it would render other bombers pretty much to hanger queen status.
In addition, there are many more planes this game needs before it the B-29 is ever to be under consideration to be added. We have glaring holes in both the Early War and Mid War plane sets as well as holes in certain country plane sets that need to be addressed before we add the Super Fortress.
Gee...I just scored a hat trick, boy that was easy.
ack-ack
-
It is a simple face that people who do not want it really do not know their WWII history, especially when it comes to the B-29.
No offense but reading your previous posts relating anything to World War II shows a large amount of lack of knowledge regarding anything relating to World War II aircraft.
ack-ack
-
This is how I look at it right now. Yes there are many planes that could be added from other countries, and the early/mid war era. I suspect many of these are great planes and would have there own places in AH.
It seems to me that B-29 is by far the most wished for item in AH. I didn't do search just taking a guess. Do you really think that all other bombers would be parked? Personally I don't think so if HTC sets the perk price accordingly.
If you look at the amount of people that populate the arenas, the LW arenas are truely the populated arenas. Its really all speculation at this point, but the truth of the matter it did serve in WWII and a valid wish. Other than the quote from Pyro (posted by Ack Ack), just curious on what HiTech or any other member of the HTCs staffs opinion is on the B-29.
I myself, much rather have the P-61A/B but to many people complain about it being an American plane or the fact that it truely doesn't become night in AH.
-
Yea, P-61 would be a great AC to get, but look how many other ACs (110, 109, 190, MOSS) too play a role as a night fighter. So there is no reason to not to have the P-61.
dood, i know muh historee teh be92 was juss the coolesst bumber in teh war tatz why we wunt it dood, becuz it dropped th nookz on te germunz in duh pahsiffuc.
Once again, why you have to put nuke with the B-29. It only used two (Fat Man= 10,200 lbs, little boy = 8,900 lbs)comparied to the tens of thousands of tons other bombs it used.
-
See Rule #4
-
dhart, two things; 1) you shouldn't call people retards, especially on AH forum. That is a good way for skuzzy to lock your forum account. 2) Most people today could not identified a B-29 from a B-24.
I do agree with you on how many people who will fly the B-29, not many.
-
Ok, you want the end all reasons to add it? I am a paying customer and want it.
Not a valid reason. You are 1 out of many hundreds...even if 50 people side with you...you're still outnumbered...and the B-29 is not a "must have" by any stretch of the imagination.
This game is one of many based on WWII aerial combat...it is not a WWII simulator...it is not "about WWII"...if either was the case, it would be a more complete experience and you wouldn't have to be wishing for the B-29, it would already be available.
Hmmm I think you need to do a little more searching of history. Seems that over 3,000 B29s were built. If you go by Boeings website, 3970 were built. Still I'd like to hear why everyone thinks its such an uber bomber? IMO the reason the 234 isn't flown often is because of the payload. Give the B-29 a 200 perk range, and go from there. I mean 600 perks for a for a formation. It wont be over used, but not under used.
I actually did my research...repeatedly...and depending on the resource the production numbers range from 2876 to 3980...I would have to assume that prototypes and test units may or may not be included in the numbers. A couple of resources show that from May 1944 to June 1945 only 1000 to 2000 were deployed to bomber squadrons operating in the PTO...the heaviest use occurred between November 1944 and August 1945 after the Marianas islands were captured and the B-29s were moved from India and China. Still, until full scale strategic bombing began in the summer of 1945 until the nukes were dropped...the B-29 had little effect on the Japanese war effort.
There is also some conflicting information as to "top speed"...a couple of sources state 399mph at 25k...others state between 357mph and 375mph...guess it depends on which model...probably the fastest ones were post war mods while the slowest were early production. If cruising speed was 220mph how would max speed be achieved?
Next question would have to be which model...highest production numbers maybe...or perhaps most used in the war? B-29, B-29A or B-29B?
And let's not forget that the 20mm in the tail was replaced by 2 additional .50 cals due to it's being ineffective.
The B-29 isn't the most wished for AC...it's just the most controversial...the actual number of legitimate B-29 requests since 2006 is less than 10.
-
The B-29 isn't the most wished for AC...it's just the most controversial...the actual number of legitimate B-29 requests since 2006 is less than 10.
I'm posting this sorta tongue in cheek, but what constitutes a legitimate B29 wish?
-
You're right Gyrene, this is a game based on WWII combat, in which the B-29 participated in, and it meets the criteria for being added to the game.
B-29 and little effect? Hmmm. During the last nine months of the war the 20th Air Force flew 3331 combat missions (24,665 bombing sorties) dropping 155,041 tons of bombs and mines. The 29 dropped incendiary bombs on Japan leaving many of the cities in ruins, along with Operation Starvation ( a 5 phase operation of dropping sea mines around Japan) basically brought Japan to its knees before the atomic bombs were even dropped.
I'm sure this had more of an impact on WWII than say, the TA-152, AR-234, or maybe even the Me-262. But as you said this "is not about WWII", so therefore in your eyes impact on the actual way should have no impact on a decision to have the B-29 or not.
As far as which model to use, that would be up to HTC. If you look at the production numbers of the B25, the 25J production was much higher than the H or C that we currently have in the game.
The maximum speed refers to the fastest speed the aircraft could travel, while cruising speed also known as the optimum cruise speed, is the most efficient speed in terms of distance, speed and fuel usage.
If you can find an aircraft that is wished for more, I'd like to see it.
Aerial view of B-29's on taxiway, massed for takeoff from Saipan.
(http://www.nps.gov/archive/amme/wwii_museum/air_offensive/b29s_on_taxiway_spn_lg.jpg)
-
Not a valid reason. You are 1 out of many hundreds...even if 50 people side with you...you're still outnumbered...and the B-29 is not a "must have" by any stretch of the imagination.
This game is one of many based on WWII aerial combat...it is not a WWII simulator...it is not "about WWII"...if either was the case, it would be a more complete experience and you wouldn't have to be wishing for the B-29, it would already be available.
Well lets see, there are no biplanes, no B-52s, no F-22s, no Apaches, kinda narrows it down as to what is left. If this is not a WWII sim then why to we recreate many of the major battles in the game? And no I am not 1 out of hundreds, I am simply 1 of hundreds. This is a business, to say my reason is not valid is about as far from the truth as you can get. If there was a poll taken on yea's and neh's for it, it would end up in the game.
-
I'm posting this sorta tongue in cheek, but what constitutes a legitimate B29 wish?
:neener: LOL...you know what I meant...do the search and see for yourself...there have been quite a few people with "spoof" B-29 posts in here.
This is a business, to say my reason is not valid is about as far from the truth as you can get. If there was a poll taken on yea's and neh's for it, it would end up in the game.
Then post the poll and see how it goes...Ack Ack, like yourself is one of the hundreds of paying customers and he gave reasons you have readily dismissed why it isn't and shouldn't be in...people who consider the impact to the rest of the paying community above their own desires will vote against it. You have yet to post a valid reason for including it...aside from your own "I want" attitude what can it do that existing U.S. or British bombers can't do...fly clear across any map being used on the servers? wipe out an entire base in one sortie? out run nearly all of the existing fighters in the game?
You're right Gyrene, this is a game based on WWII combat, in which the B-29 participated in, and it meets the criteria for being added to the game.
B-29 and little effect? Hmmm. During the last nine months of the war the 20th Air Force flew 3331 combat missions (24,665 bombing sorties) dropping 155,041 tons of bombs and mines. The 29 dropped incendiary bombs on Japan leaving many of the cities in ruins, along with Operation Starvation ( a 5 phase operation of dropping sea mines around Japan) basically brought Japan to its knees before the atomic bombs were even dropped.
And Japan kept on fighting...refused to give up...until the second nuke...nice photo by the way, looks like June or July 1945 when the heaviest bombing missions started.
I'm sure this had more of an impact on WWII than say, the TA-152, AR-234, or maybe even the Me-262. But as you said this "is not about WWII", so therefore in your eyes impact on the actual way should have no impact on a decision to have the B-29 or not.
I have no clue why the AR-234 or Me-262 are included...however what I do know is neither has had much of an impact on the game...the TA-152 is just another 190.
If you can find an aircraft that is wished for more, I'd like to see it.
HE-111 pops up in more threads than anything else...the Ju-52 is a close second...(if I counted it right)...
-
Well lets see, there are no biplanes, no B-52s, no F-22s, no Apaches, kinda narrows it down as to what is left. If this is not a WWII sim then why to we recreate many of the major battles in the game? And no I am not 1 out of hundreds, I am simply 1 of hundreds. This is a business, to say my reason is not valid is about as far from the truth as you can get. If there was a poll taken on yea's and neh's for it, it would end up in the game.
Name one WW2 air battle that is regularly, if at all, recreated in any of the main arenas (EW, MW or LWs)? Even the designer and developer of this game has repeatedly stated that AH is not about recreating WW2. Care to tell him that he's incorrect?
ack-ack
-
I'm not disputing its dogfighting abillity, or its difficulty to kill. All I'm saying is line up the Ar234, 262, and the 163, then (usually, no accounting for personal prefferances and skill sets) you will die more often in the 234. Mainly due to the fact that if you want to kill someone, you have to keep him dead on your 6, and that the lower stess tollerances means you can't dive as fast to escape an attacker. I suppose you could dispute the rear firing guns issue due to the fact that they are 20mm's instead of the 30mm's.
With any average joe the 262 is harder to kill, of course it is. It's a jet, you get in trouble you run. You won't believe how much interest I get and PM's I receive asking how I fly it that way and how a person wants to learn (aside from the whines of how I killed em). I think it's great and gives me an opportunity to help someone out.
I purposely slow down (full rudder barrel rolls) to lure the guy in...you know everyone and their mother would like to kill a 234. But I think there's been a few more guys around the MA's as of the past few months that fly them, and a lot of guys are more skiddish while attacking them.
Speed? A Jet is a jet. I can speed along at 400+ on the deck, no other fighter can do that. Yeah, it has dive issues but still can hit around 500 in a dive, A fighter can catch that fairly easily at 550 (Jugs, ponies). But In the long run you won't catch the 234 unless you are in a 262.
The 20mms are definately easier to hit with, don't think I'd want 30mms (What would you get...120 rds or so?) but I suppose each has it's own advantages. Killing in the 234 is hard to come by...either you kill em in a few pings, or you take their engine oil out and they bug out...sometimes they get mad and keep on your six. Normally I'll lose an engine oil but for me that's no big deal. I judge the situation and see if I will need the extra engine's speed to get me out. It's a real bugger losing both engines...plane isn't that great of a glider.
Give a guy a month in the 234 to find out it's weaknesses and strengths and I guarantee that pilot will fly better. I used to be big into GV bombing in it until I first killed a fighter with it...never looked back!
-
With any average joe the 262 is harder to kill, of course it is.
An average joe in an Me 262 is a pretty easy kill if he's actually trying to do any killing himself.
-
I have no clue why the AR-234 or Me-262 are included...however what I do know is neither has had much of an impact on the game...the TA-152 is just another 190.
TA is a helluva bird at alt.
I'd rather not explain myself about the 234 again.
I think I might make a video on how to fly the 234, so more people can discover it.
-
An average joe in an Me 262 is a pretty easy kill if he's actually trying to do any killing himself.
Most definitely, but for the most part, if they get a con 2.0 or around that range, they hightail it out and grab more alt...but that's what the jet was designed to do, wasn't a dogfighter. Or they make long, sweeping passes, ie pass, extend 6K, rinse and repeat. More experienced 262 pilots do more experienced things.
-
Gyrene if you just go by wishlist topics...I have 11 for the HE-111 and 28 for the B-29.
-
With any average joe the 262 is harder to kill, of course it is. It's a jet, you get in trouble you run. You won't believe how much interest I get and PM's I receive asking how I fly it that way and how a person wants to learn (aside from the whines of how I killed em). I think it's great and gives me an opportunity to help someone out.
Yes, but it seems your missing my point. I am in no way saying that the 234 is an easy kill. All I'm saying is that if you take the same guy and give him the 234 and 262 for one month each, he'll be a harder kill in the 262. Mostly due to speed, and forward firing guns, even if they are the crappy 30mm's.
Speed? A Jet is a jet. I can speed along at 400+ on the deck, no other fighter can do that. Yeah, it has dive issues but still can hit around 500 in a dive, A fighter can catch that fairly easily at 550 (Jugs, ponies). But In the long run you won't catch the 234 unless you are in a 262.
Again, you seem to think (at least this is what I got from the above section) that I'm saying the 234 is an easy kill and that the 262 can't be touched. That isn't the case, and I know it. I've been killed attacking a 234 before, and I've been killed attacking a 262 before. I lasted longer against the 234, IDK if that is due to difference in expierence level or superiority of the plane though.
The 20mms are definately easier to hit with, don't think I'd want 30mms (What would you get...120 rds or so?) but I suppose each has it's own advantages.
Not sure about this last part. Did you think I was suggesting that the 30mm's are better? If so, then I was saying that you could dispute the difficulties caused by rear facing guns due to the fact that they are the easier to uses, and flater firing 20mm's. Personally, having rear facing 30mm's in the 234 would be a real b***h.
[/quote]
-
The Ar 234 is actually a pretty easy kill if you're coalt with it, and especially it if it has bombs, or you're moving particularly fast.
-
Yes, but it seems your missing my point. I am in no way saying that the 234 is an easy kill. All I'm saying is that if you take the same guy and give him the 234 and 262 for one month each, he'll be a harder kill in the 262. Mostly due to speed, and forward firing guns, even if they are the crappy 30mm's.
Yeah for sure, I was just saying if you gave him a month in the 234 to train and tool around with it, he might make the plane useful in his hands. I've been playing for years now and still can barely hit with the 30mms.
Again, you seem to think (at least this is what I got from the above section) that I'm saying the 234 is an easy kill and that the 262 can't be touched. That isn't the case, and I know it. I've been killed attacking a 234 before, and I've been killed attacking a 262 before. I lasted longer against the 234, IDK if that is due to difference in expierence level or superiority of the plane though.
I'd have to say Experience and plane, lots of people say "it's the pilot not the plane". Very true, it's how the pilot uses the plane. If you want to get down 'n' dirty flying a 234 or 262, go for it! If you just want to do high speed bombing in the 234, or high speed BnZ flights in the 262, what's stopping someone? Both can and can't be touched, just depends on how a person flies it.
Not sure about this last part. Did you think I was suggesting that the 30mm's are better? If so, then I was saying that you could dispute the difficulties caused by rear facing guns due to the fact that they are the easier to uses, and flater firing 20mm's. Personally, having rear facing 30mm's in the 234 would be a real b***h.
Nah, I was just commenting on the 30mms in general, great guns, do damage instantly, IF you can hit someone. Would take 20mms over 30mms even though I may not get an insta kill, I can warn off fighters if I get a single ping with the 20mm. Of course, if I get a hit with the 30 they'd be in the tower or going down most likely. :)
The Ar 234 is actually a pretty easy kill if you're coalt with it, and especially it if it has bombs, or you're moving particularly fast.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/bubi-1.jpg)
Why yes, yes it is. :)
(Cannot remember when this was or what the situation was, but I figured I'd post it for kicks, no harsh feelings!)
-
I'd agree with you on the 30mm's spikes. IMO, the germans would have done better to arm the 262 and 163 with 4 to 6 20mm's. Even if they were MG/FF's.
As to the plane issue, that is true upto a point. If your in a 262 and use high speed BnZ's you can't be touched EXCEPT for the swarm of players filling the skys with lead, just so they can eliminate you and get back to fighting. Anything will go down if you run it up against enough guns. There is no exception to this that I can think of.
-
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/bubi-1.jpg)
Why yes, yes it is. :)
(Cannot remember when this was or what the situation was, but I figured I'd post it for kicks, no harsh feelings!)
lol I remember that (a bit :D)
Let's just say I think there were a lot of assists on me in that engagement. lol :)
-
The only thing this game has in common with World War II are the planes we fly in here, that's it. This game is not about World War II, it never has been and never will be. It's about fighting using World War II planes and ground vehicles and in no way attempts to recreate anything historical in relation to World War II.
Pyro in a post many years ago, way before you started to play, mentioned in a post why they are hesitant to add the B-29 and you want to know what that reason was? It was because it would render other bombers pretty much to hanger queen status.
In addition, there are many more planes this game needs before it the B-29 is ever to be under consideration to be added. We have glaring holes in both the Early War and Mid War plane sets as well as holes in certain country plane sets that need to be addressed before we add the Super Fortress.
Gee...I just scored a hat trick, boy that was easy.
ack-ack
I agree with ack we should add the a26 :D.
semp
-
Pyro in a post many years ago, way before you started to play, mentioned in a post why they are hesitant to add the B-29 and you want to know what that reason was? It was because it would render other bombers pretty much to hanger queen status.
ack-ack
Show me this post. Better yet, where is Pyro or Hitech? Surly they know there are some many post about getting B-29. I want to see their opinion on it.
-
Gyrene if you just go by wishlist topics...I have 11 for the HE-111 and 28 for the B-29.
Yes sir...I got the same, however if you look at the content...all but 10 of those B-29 starters was a joke of some kind.
TA is a helluva bird at alt.
I'd rather not explain myself about the 234 again.
That is true, however it is not the point...the point is that neither the TA-152 nor the AR-234 have had a detrimental effect on the gameplay as the B-29 would...of course us naysayers could all be over thinking the effects that the B-29 would have overall, but what good would it do for the game...give a few "I want" types some temporary gratification so they can tool around the LW arenas in yet another "captain america" aircraft? There are 46 U.S. and British aircraft...and only 34 between the German, Italian, Japanese and Russians...what good would be served by a 375mph bomber?
-
Then why dont we get Skuzzy or someone to start a poll on if it should be added?
-
Then why dont we get Skuzzy or someone to start a poll on if it should be added?
Skuzzy has nothing to do with it. But i agree, they do need to do a poll.
I do like to seed the B-29 as much as seeing other on AH. I am all about "Diversity" in both AC and countries.
-
That is true, however it is not the point...the point is that neither the TA-152 nor the AR-234 have had a detrimental effect on the gameplay as the B-29 would...of course us naysayers could all be over thinking the effects that the B-29 would have overall, but what good would it do for the game...give a few "I want" types some temporary gratification so they can tool around the LW arenas in yet another "captain america" aircraft? There are 46 U.S. and British aircraft...and only 34 between the German, Italian, Japanese and Russians...what good would be served by a 375mph bomber?
Oh trust me I don't want the B29 much at all...it'd only benefit guys who don't fly the 234, since they have tens of thousands of buff perks. To my name right now, I have 6.49. But that's my fault because I up a 234 as soon as I get just enough perks.
The 29 would have a great affect when flown, hell, I wouldn't attack one in any plane except a 163 or a fast cannon bird. I might feel a little safer if there were no drones.
-
Oh trust me I don't want the B29 much at all...it'd only benefit guys who don't fly the 234, since they have tens of thousands of buff perks. To my name right now, I have 6.49. But that's my fault because I up a 234 as soon as I get just enough perks.
The 29 would have a great affect when flown, hell, I wouldn't attack one in any plane except a 163 or a fast cannon bird. I might feel a little safer if there were no drones.
Very true i say give it a low ENY or just leave it at 5.Give it no drone's at all with no big bomb drone's or not still be a deadly aircraft.
-
Oh trust me I don't want the B29 much at all...it'd only benefit guys who don't fly the 234, since they have tens of thousands of buff perks. To my name right now, I have 6.49. But that's my fault because I up a 234 as soon as I get just enough perks.
The 29 would have a great affect when flown, hell, I wouldn't attack one in any plane except a 163 or a fast cannon bird. I might feel a little safer if there were no drones.
I would attack it nor matter what the chances are. I am sure there are ppl on AH that can easily take it down.
-
I'd attack one in a M-Jug...8 .50 make bombers go BOOM!
-
I'd attack one in a M-Jug...8 .50 make bombers go BOOM!
lol, or 2 x 20 mm and 2 x 30 mm in a 110.
-
I'd attack one in a M-Jug...8 .50 make bombers go BOOM!
I dont know.
18 fifty cals and 3 20mm cannons can make a plane splode pretty fast. :t
Attacking it from the top would be a deathtrap.
Attacking it from the rear would be a deathtrap.
Attacking it from the front is a deathtrap.
Attacking underneath it is a deathtrap.
We need planes that can shoot it down before we add this thing.
At this moment it would be damn near invincible.
Some people can shoot planes accurately with turrets from more than a K away.
The only plane that would have a chance is a near supersonic 163.
I'll be happy to wait a couple years to add the planes to make a B-29 addition feasable.
Untill then I'm just fine and dandy flying my 17's.
-
I think the B-29 in game would be a little bit easier to down than it would have been in real life. The majority of B-29 that were downed in WW2 were due to weather and mechanical failures with a surprisingly small amount lost due to enemy fighters.
20th Bomber Command
80 total, with 22 due to fighters, 7 from AAA and 51 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 70 total, with 20 due to fighters, 5 from AAA and 45 from "other"
1945 10 total, with 2 due to fighters, 2 from AAA and 6 from "other"
21st Bomber Command
334 total, with 52 due to fighters, 47 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 216 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 25 total, with 4 due to fighters, 1 from AAA, and 20 from "other"
1945 309 total, with 48 due to fighters, 46 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 196 from "other"
The reason why it would probably be easier in AH would be because players would have a wider selection of fighters to use that would be better suited for bomber interceptions than what the Japanese were able to field at the later stages of the war. Had the B-29 been used in the ETO, the Germans had planes that would have been better capable of intercepting the bombers.
ack-ack
-
Skuzzy has nothing to do with it. But i agree, they do need to do a poll.
I do like to seed the B-29 as much as seeing other on AH. I am all about "Diversity" in both AC and countries.
Perhaps not quite like that. They post a list of aircraft they are willing to have a vote on. Then we narrow it down to the top 5 requested aircraft. After that is done, they have a final vote on which AC will be the next to be added, not displacing current projects.
-
Ack-Ack, this is what the Japs had that was design to take on the B-29:
Ki-84 but not sure which model.
Kawasaki Ki-100 was the best AC that IJ had that showed good qualities against the B-29. Armed with 2 x 20mm and 2x 12.5 mm, great speed at high alt. but only 395 where built. It was equal the the P-51, La7 and Ki-84.
But for the most part, the Zero was the most produced AC the jap build and counter the B-29. Not sure the A6M6 had the ability to take on the B-29, A6M7 was designed for Kamikaze and A6M8 only had two prototype that could have been the most advanced AC for them.
The problem was that the Japs did not put much effort in designing better AC like Germany did. For two reasons:1) we where not bombing them around the clock like we did in ET, 2) Most of the air battle would be sea base then land. By the last year or so of the war, they had developed newer and better AC but little was done to get them into action.
Here are some AC that could have took on the B-29:
Nakajima Ki-87: had the ability to counter the B-29 with 2 x 30-mm. Only one build.
Rikugun Ki-93: was a twin eng, armed with 1× 57 mm Ho-401 cannon in ventral gondola and 2× 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wing roots. Only 2 produced.
The Ki-94: was designed as a high alt fighter to counter the B-29, but only one was produced at the end of the war.
Kyūshū J7W: a navy base AC that, i must say, advance design for its time. armed with 4 30mm cannon, max speed of +450, but only 2 build.
Nakajima Ki-201 was the Me 262 version but none produced.
Mitsubishi J8M was the Japs version of the Me 163. They knew that the B-29 was going to be a issue so they needed something that can up fast and clime high in short time. Only 7 built none saw action.
-
Ack-Ack, this is what the Japs had that was design to take on the B-29:
Ki-84 but not sure which model.
Kawasaki Ki-100 was the best AC that IJ had that showed good qualities against the B-29. Armed with 2 x 20mm and 2x 12.5 mm, great speed at high alt. but only 395 where built. It was equal the the P-51, La7 and Ki-84.
But for the most part, the Zero was the most produced AC the jap build and counter the B-29. Not sure the A6M6 had the ability to take on the B-29, A6M7 was designed for Kamikaze and A6M8 only had two prototype that could have been the most advanced AC for them.
The problem was that the Japs did not put much effort in designing better AC like Germany did. For two reasons:1) we where not bombing them around the clock like we did in ET, 2) Most of the air battle would be sea base then land. By the last year or so of the war, they had developed newer and better AC but little was done to get them into action.
Here are some AC that could have took on the B-29:
Nakajima Ki-87: had the ability to counter the B-29 with 2 x 30-mm. Only one build.
Rikugun Ki-93: was a twin eng, armed with 1× 57 mm Ho-401 cannon in ventral gondola and 2× 20 mm Ho-5 cannon in wing roots. Only 2 produced.
The Ki-94: was designed as a high alt fighter to counter the B-29, but only one was produced at the end of the war.
Kyūshū J7W: a navy base AC that, i must say, advance design for its time. armed with 4 30mm cannon, max speed of +450, but only 2 build.
Nakajima Ki-201 was the Me 262 version but none produced.
Mitsubishi J8M was the Japs version of the Me 163. They knew that the B-29 was going to be a issue so they needed something that can up fast and clime high in short time. Only 7 built none saw action.
The Ki-100 had troubles intercepting the B-29 at high altitudes because the engine performance decreased at high altitudes. When the B-29 changed tactics and only when the B-29 was used on low level bombing mission the Ki-100 had an easier time intercepting the B-29 raids.
When the B-29s raids were still at high altitudes, the only real way the Ki-100 could attack was using head on attacks. Ki-84s had a similiar problem when the B-29s were still flying at high altitudes and like the Ki-100, were more successful in intercepting the B-29s raids when the USAAF started flying them in low level bombing raids.
In addition, the Japanese were also severly handicapped by the fuel quality which further hindered the intercept abilities of all of their fighters when going after the B-29s at high altitude.
The J2M Raiden was more successful than either the Ki-100 and the Ki-84 in intercepting the B-29s at high altitude.
In AH, while fuel quality isn't an issue but engine performance at high altitude is and all one needs to do is fly the B-29 above 25,000ft or higher and the Ki-84 will not have such an easy time in intercepting one. Because we're not hindered by things like the jet stream (which was the main reason for the B-29s and other USAAF bombers flying low-altitude raids), most will fly their B-29s above 25k where the German and Allied (referring to AH only) planes do have an advantage over the Japanese planes in intercepting the B-29.
Regardless of that, historical records show that far more B-29s were lost due to mechanical failures and AAA than were lost to Japanese interceptors.
I'm sure you've alread read it but there is a really good book called B-29 Hunters of the JAAF By Henry Sakaida, Kōji Takaki (http://www.amazon.com/B-29-Hunters-Osprey-Aviation-Elite/dp/1841761613)
ack-ack
-
And you are right Ack Ack about the mechanic of the B-29. The first few missions from Manchuria was a prime example of the issues they had. And yes, b-29s get get engage but the IJ had little success.
-
And you are right Ack Ack about the mechanic of the B-29. The first few missions from Manchuria was a prime example of the issues they had. And yes, b-29s get get engage but the IJ had little success.
I wonder if the Ki-100 and Ki-84 would have had more success in intercepting B-29s at high altitude if the quality of fuel was better or were their engines just badly designed for high altitude interceptions and regardless if they had better fuel, would still face problems?
ack-ack
-
what iz dis here grammar ya jive about?
-
this topic is a fail, lock it now (http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/brayidur/facepalm_2.jpg)
and for this b 29 post
(http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f100/brayidur/b29request.jpg)
-
Ok, everyone complains about the B-29.........how bout a new heavy Russian bomber? I think I found one that would work.......the TU-4! :devil
-
I agree with this posting bring the a26 into production ASAP :x :x :x
semp
-
i would love a B-29.
-
i would love a B-29.
First off, it doesn't seem like you've been around long enough to realize how it would throw off gameplay. ;)
Second, I have 2 photos...
First:
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)
Second:
(http://i435.photobucket.com/albums/qq73/TheKinSlayer_1993/deadthread.jpg)
-
First off, it doesn't seem like you've been around long enough to realize how it would throw off gameplay. ;)
That is such a over statement.
-
look on the bright side, it will come back again its a new month :D.
semp
-
You know the B29 is a bad idea when even Voss disabled it from his game.
I have removed the B-29 in Europe, and done away with the A-bomb. It may return someday, but for now it's gone.
http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=399
-
:rofl I haven't read that in a while........... Danke Bruder!
You know the B29 is a bad idea when even Voss disabled it from his game.
http://www.combatsim.com/review.php?id=399
"Paul: The controversy was in response to mis-quotes, hearsay, and such. Facts? No comment. I'll let the sim do my talking for me."
And the SIM has done all the talking since! :lol
-
From the first article in '97:
"Pro-Line is headed by Paul "Voss" Hinds. Paul is a former USAF F16 Viper pilot who also happens to own and fly his own P-51 Mustang! It also happens that he has flown a Spitfire and the only flying Me-109 in the world."
Talk about living the dream. :)
-
From the first article in '97:
"Pro-Line is headed by Paul "Voss" Hinds. Paul is a former USAF F16 Viper pilot who also happens to own and fly his own P-51 Mustang! It also happens that he has flown a Spitfire and the only flying Me-109 in the world."
Talk about living the dream. :)
To think, all it took was one bite from a red scorpion to kill the dream.
ack-ack
-
That is such a over statement.
Agreed. Add a few puffy acks to the V bases and ports, and, combined with the uber pwnage puffy inflicts on perk planes, you have no problems. As for the airbases, if no one is there to attack the B-29, then no one would have been there to attack the 5 lancs that have always done the same job.
But I say not yet. We need to get a Tu-2, and a Pe-8 first.
-
To think, all it took was one bite from a red scorpion to kill the dream.
ack-ack
While on a covert op, a scorpion used one of his little claws and gave me a purple nurple. Man that hurt like hell. :mad:
-
I would like to have it now so we can end all the B29 threads on the wish list.
-
Speaking of B29's I wonder if any of this is salvageable?
http://forum.armyairforces.com/photo.aspx?photoid=4516
-
I would like to have it now so we can end all the B29 threads on the wish list.
Yes i agree.
-
We need to wish for AC Supplies too then! :aok
Speaking of B29's I wonder if any of this is salvageable?
http://forum.armyairforces.com/photo.aspx?photoid=4516
-
I say we just get the B29 in here I've kinda noticed if there's a bomber with a bigger load then a b25H or C and it has a 20mm gun on it for protection I've noticed it wont be on the game.
-
Just quit trying, stealth. Your B29 thread here has been shot down to a million peices.
-
Just quit trying, stealth. Your B29 thread here has been shot down to a million peices.
Really, how?
Non of you "i don't want the B-29" have not yet prove why B-29 should not be on AH.
-
Really, how?
Non of you "i don't want the B-29" have not yet prove why B-29 should not be on AH.
And no one has proven why it should be in AH.
-
And no one has proven why it should be in AH.
It has.
It played a major role in bombing Japan.
It was the only bomber to bomb Japan most of the war.
Almost 90% of the bombs dropped on islands of Japan were delivered by B-29 (147,000 tons)
Makes great FSO and other special event with the B-29
-
It has.
Not even close.
It played a major role in bombing Japan.
It was the only bomber to bomb Japan most of the war.
It did? You have got to quit reading those old 3rd grade school books full of revised history. I could have sworn the war was going on much earlier than October 1944. And, wasn't Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and a few other islands part of Japan...and they were bombed by something other than the B-29.
Almost 90% of the bombs dropped on islands of Japan were delivered by B-29 (147,000 tons)
You get 1 point on that.
Makes great FSO and other special event with the B-29
Maybe for you and all the other "1337 ah is a leet bomber" types...but unless you want ME262's and 163's enabled for every FSO, ain't gonna work.
-
It did? You have got to quit reading those old 3rd grade school books full of revised history. I could have sworn the war was going on much earlier than October 1944. And, wasn't Okinawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and a few other islands part of Japan...and they were bombed by something other than the B-29.
I am talking about the mainland Japan. 20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan and the B-29 was the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war.
In fact, Here is all the BG in the Pacific Theater and there roll. Not bad for a 3rd Grade Text Book
5th Army Air Force
3rd BG:
• B-25/A-20
• All operations south-west Pacific
22nd Bomb Group
• B-24, B-25, B-26
• Operations south-west Pacific
• flew their first armed recon mission of several from Okinawa over Japan 08/25/1945
38TH BG
• B-25
• All operations South West Pacific
43th BG
• B-17, B-24
• Operations south-west Pacific
• July 1945, start doing missions on Japan
90th BG
• B-24
• All operations south-west pacific
• On 10 August 1945 concluded the war by flying reconnaissance missions over Japan.
312th BG
• A-20 and at end of the war B-32
• Opreations south west Pacific
• Only BG assign the B-32, flew reconnaissance over Japan Aug 1945
345th BG
• B-25
• All operations south-west Pacific
• Support invasion of Okinawa
380th BG
• B-24
• All operations south-west pacific
417th Bomb Group
• A-20
• All operations south-west Pacific
7th Army Air Forces
30th BG
• B-24
• All operations south-west Pacific
• Last operation was over Iwo Jima
41st BG
• B-25
• All operations south west Pacific
10th Army Air Force
12th BG
• B-25
• Operations in North Africa (44) and transfer to China later in 44 for India – Burma operations.
13th Army Air Force
5th BG
• B-17, B-24
• All operations in south-west Pacific
11th Bomb Group
• B-17, B-24
• All operations south-west Pacific
42nd BG
• B-25, B-26
• All operations south-west Pacific
307th BG
• B-24
• All operations south-west Pacific
14th Army Air Forces
308th Bomb Group
• B-24
• All operations China
20th Army Air Force
40th, 44th, 462nd, 466th, 468th, 497th, 498th, 499th, 500th, 6th, 9th, 504th, 505th, 509th, 19th, 29th, 39th, 330th, 16th, 331th, 501st, 479th, and 506th BG
• B-29
• All operations Japan
Yes, them small island that are part of Japan have been bomb by bomber Groups of 5th, 7th and 13th Army Air Force but such a small scale compare to the maidland.
Oh, and yes it would be a great FSO or special event it will work.
-
b29 was important in bombing japan. no doubt about that. However this is not japan. people will use and abuse the b29 sameway that grizz over use that 262 :uhoh. give it up it aint gonna happen anytime soon. b29's will kill the game. right now we have the bishops upping 20 and 30 buff formation. imagine 20 b29's formations upping? they will kill 1/2 the map in one pass. maybe you guys should try to understand that 95% of all the fights happen at around 5 to 7k alt, and most players in the game like it that way. we dont go around chasing buffs that already dropped eggs on a base from 30k. majority of the people are here for one thing and one thing only, furballing or base taken being by missions or hording all the way there :D. that's what attracted us to AH. we didnt join to fly for 1 hour chasing some high altitude buff. anyway I said what i wanted to say. good lucky with your never ending I want the b29 thread. :salute
semp
-
SEMP, when asking for the B-29, some are thinking of special events. NOT the MA.
-
This was likely mentioned before, but the perk price would have to be equal, if not higher, than the 262 for 1 plane in the MA. Maybe 300-500 perks per plane? Using the high end, 1500 perks to up a formation. Not like it would be a problem for a lot of folks. If the B-29 was added today, I would propose a wipe of perk points. The problem with that is, it will chase away a lot of players. As I saw mentioned in earlier posts, a lot of players are there for the furballing, mission/base hording type of style. Having to lose their perk points just so a few folks could have the B-29, wouldn't do well for HTC.
oakranger
Currently, the IJAC line up is lacking the planes to properly intercept the B-29. So until they are added, even in scenarios, the B-29 would be a broken plane. The exception to this is if the staff put a alt cap on them, maybe 20-25k. Then, it's possible for them being useful in the scenario's with current IJAC line up. "You fly higher than this, and your side is heavily penalized.", kind of thing. Not sure how they would keep track of the altitude's though. It would probably come in the form of screen shots from the IJ fliers, but this would be after the fact. Maybe putting a harsher penalty into it, would compel people to stick to the alt restrictions. "In also incurring a heavy penalty to your side, the squad assigned to the B-29 breaking this alt cap, will not be allowed to fly the B-29 in the next scenario and/or not allowed to participate in the next scenario. If found to be repeating-ly, breaking this rule, the squad in question, will be banned from attending Special Events.". This would mean that a squad would need to be sure of the people they are using, are very trust worthy.
But I already see a problem with what I said. You can never be 100% sure about new squad mates, which in turn, might prevent you from taking them along for a B-29 mission. They, in turn, might despise the squad for not allowing them to join for a B-29 mission. However, the penalty for a person on a squad, shooting down a bunch of allied planes (whether he's stupid/new and doesn't know better/intentionally), is heavy on the squad that person flew with. So maybe it isn't too harsh of a penalty?
-
I am talking about the mainland Japan. 20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan and the B-29 was the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war.
No the 20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan it wasn't the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war...geez you have got to learn to use the english language better if you're going to argue a point. The 20th Bomber Group was the only USAAF bomb group to get it, yes. It was the only bomber to drop ordinance on mainland Japan since 1942, yes. It was used almost exclusively during the final stages of the war against Japan, yes. But it wasn't the only bomber used to drop bombs on mainlan Japan most of the war...
Japan was bombed from bases in India and China on: 7 July 1944 (14 B-29s), 29 July (70+), 10 August (24), 20 August (61), 8 September (90), 26 September (83), 25 October (59), 12 November (29), 21 November (61), 19 December (36) and for the last time on 6 January 1945 (49).
After the capture of the Marianas Islands the first run consisted of 111 planes on November 29 1944...and the numbers increased as more planes were put online...your book should have told you that.
Yes, them small island that are part of Japan have been bomb by bomber Groups of 5th, 7th and 13th Army Air Force but such a small scale compare to the maidland.
Oh, and yes it would be a great FSO or special event it will work.
I wouldn't call several hundred bombing missions with B-17s "small scale" by any stretch of the imagination...it may not have been as much ordinance as what was dropped on the mainland but it wasn't small scale by the number of planes and sorties flown.
And no it wouldn't be great for FSO or special events...first, the Japanese planes that existed during that time don't exist in AH...and, no one would want to fly it at less than 20k alt like it was flown in early 1945 when it was decided that high alt missions weren't accurate enough and losses to anti aircraft fire were too high.
Volron, in the special events arenas they can put high speed winds at whatever altitude ceiling they want to keep people from going higher...and it's pretty effective...only problem with the B-29s would be that those settings would also penalize legitimate planes from getting higher as well.
-
No the 20th (Strategic) Army Air Force was the only group assign to bomb mainland Japan it wasn't the ONLY bomber to bomb Japan most of the war
The 20th Bomber Group was the only USAAF bomb group to assigned to bomb mainland Japan. The other bomber groups where assigned south-west pacific, India – Burma operations and China. If you keep telling me it wasn't the only bomber bombing Japan, what other bomber keep bombing it besides B-29?
I wouldn't call several hundred bombing missions with B-17s "small scale" by any stretch of the imagination...it may not have been as much ordinance as what was dropped on the mainland but it wasn't small scale by the number of planes and sorties flown.
And no it wouldn't be great for FSO or special events...first, the Japanese planes that existed during that time don't exist in AH...
Yes it would make a great FSO event. Yes we do lack on a few IJ planes but we still have the Ki-84, Ki-61, NIK2-J and A6M5 that too took on the B-29 historically. But that would not matter sine we have the B-17G in some early war event (Too Little, Too Late- Philippines December 1941) way to early to be in this event.
and, no one would want to fly it at less than 20k alt like it was flown in early 1945 when it was decided that high alt missions weren't accurate enough and losses to anti aircraft fire were too high.
Volron, in the special events arenas they can put high speed winds at whatever altitude ceiling they want to keep people from going higher...and it's pretty effective...only problem with the B-29s would be that those settings would also penalize legitimate planes from getting higher as well.
I am sure some will not get that high give time factor to hit the targets. and with the wind factor, i seen people go 1,000 feet or higher and sill dose not effect their performance.
-
Volron, in the special events arenas they can put high speed winds at whatever altitude ceiling they want to keep people from going higher...and it's pretty effective...only problem with the B-29s would be that those settings would also penalize legitimate planes from getting higher as well.
Though I didn't know that they restricted altitude in that manner, that isn't what I meant. It would be a, "fly by honor", type of thing for the squad assigned to the B-29. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I doubt that ANY of the squads in SEA's would break that altitude cap intentionally. There may be one or two folks in the assigned squad, that may do that, but how is that any different than if those one or two folks, shot down a bunch of allies? Seeing as the B-29 is a broken plane against the current Japanese AC lineup, the penalty can be set to be heavy until more Japanese AC capable of intercepting the B-29 came into play. As those planes are introduced, you would remove the altitude penalty. I'm just tossing out a thought on this issue, in which the B-29 could be introduced for SEA.
-
Though I didn't know that they restricted altitude in that manner, that isn't what I meant. It would be a, "fly by honor", type of thing for the squad assigned to the B-29. I'm going to go out on a limb and say, I doubt that ANY of the squads in SEA's would break that altitude cap intentionally. There may be one or two folks in the assigned squad, that may do that, but how is that any different than if those one or two folks, shot down a bunch of allies? Seeing as the B-29 is a broken plane against the current Japanese AC lineup, the penalty can be set to be heavy until more Japanese AC capable of intercepting the B-29 came into play. As those planes are introduced, you would remove the altitude penalty. I'm just tossing out a thought on this issue, in which the B-29 could be introduced for SEA.
Why add the B-29 now in that case? It would take HTC a lot of dev time to add the B-29, whereas many of the needed Japanese aircraft could be added in the same time.
I do think people grossly exaggerate the impact it would have on AH. The people who advocate for it also seem to ignore the resources it would cost to add it.
If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.
-
Why add the B-29 now in that case? It would take HTC a lot of dev time to add the B-29, whereas many of the needed Japanese aircraft could be added in the same time.
I do think people grossly exaggerate the impact it would have on AH. The people who advocate for it also seem to ignore the resources it would cost to add it.
If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.
Hey, in all argument i do agree. There are many other AC that are needed too. Diversity in plane set what make AH more interesting.
-
The only good thing that the B29 would add if it had a high perk price, would hopefully lead to alot less suicide bombing runs and also more buffs to shoot down :joystick:
-
If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.
I keep hearing people call the A-26 a "bomber", wasn't it an "Attack" plane made for attacking ground targets? (trains, gvs, troops etc.)
I thought thats what they were supposed to be used for, despite the misuse of the "attack" category in the game.
-
I keep hearing people call the A-26 a "bomber", wasn't it an "Attack" plane made for attacking ground targets? (trains, gvs, troops etc.)
I thought thats what they were supposed to be used for, despite the misuse of the "attack" category in the game.
It would still fall under the "Bomber" category in AH, just as the A-20 does.
-
I think we need B29 becasue a WW2 flight sim the b29 was apart of WW2 and the only issue issue is the nuke that it would carry. I think you you guys should perk the plane to about 5-10 and perk the nuclear bomb so people just cant go aroung a nuke airfields. Lastly i would like for it to be banned from the DA because the rooks think they are the Eighth airforce bombing the Knites are getting bombed 24/7. :angel:
-
I think we need B29 becasue a WW2 flight sim the b29 was apart of WW2 and the only issue issue is the nuke that it would carry. I think you you guys should perk the plane to about 5-10 and perk the nuclear bomb so people just cant go aroung a nuke airfields. Lastly i would like for it to be banned from the DA because the rooks think they are the Eighth airforce bombing the Knites are getting bombed 24/7. :angel:
I am not sure why some see no need for the B-29 other than they think ppl will milkrun 3-4 bases in one sortie. Oh wait, i was told that it will not balance the plane set on AH, a overstatement. The perk would have to be really high with the overrated 262. No nukes. they only drop 2 with a total... something tons where other ords was + 100,000 tones.
-
I am not sure why some see no need for the B-29 other than they think ppl will milkrun 3-4 bases in one sortie.
What exactly is the need for the B-29?
AH already has:
B-17G - 6000lbs payload - ceiling 35,600ft at 287mph
B-24J - 8000lbs payload - ceiling 28,000ft at 290mph
B-25C - 3000lbs payload - ceiling 21,200ft at 256mph
B-25H - 3000lbs payload - ceiling 25,000ft at 275mph
B-26B - 4000lbs payload - ceiling 21,000ft at 214mph
A-20G/Boston MkIII - 4000lbs payload - ceiling 23,700ft at 312mph
Lancaster III - 16000lbs payload - ceiling 23,500ft at 264mph
Please tell us what you cannot do with those bombers that you could with a B-29 on any terrain available in AH right now...aside from dropping a nuke or wiping out a large airfield in one pass.
B-29 -20,000lbs payload - ceiling 33,000ft at 357mph
-
What exactly is the need for the B-29?
I'm going to ask you the same question.
What exactly is the need for any other fighter in AH? We already have a ton of fighters to do other fighters jobs.
Why do we need a P51H when we have the CHog?
Why do we need a 410 when we have the 110s and Mossie?
Why do we need Panther when we have the Firefly?
Why do we need a Ki43 when we have the Ki84?
Why do we need a Helldiver when we have the SBD?
Why do we need a Judy when we have the Kate & Val?
Why do we need the He111 when we have the Ju88?
etc etc etc
Do you see what I'm getting at? Pretty much every aircraft that is NOT in AH already has an AH counterpart that could do it's job. Does that mean we shouldn't add them because of that? No.
AH needs a perked bomber that can be used for a wider role than the Ar234. However, it doesn't have to be a B29, honestly I would like to see the glass nose A26 with drones. It could fly at what? 400 MPH with a decent gun defense and it could carry 8000lbs of ord.
-
It would still fall under the "Bomber" category in AH, just as the A-20 does.
So then IF it was introduced to AH, it would be able to be flown in "attack" or "Bomber" mode only?
-
Please tell us what you cannot do with those bombers that you could with a B-29 on any terrain available in AH right now...aside from dropping a nuke or wiping out a large airfield in one pass.
A divers plane set.
-
I just want to see how the thing will handle!
-
Why add the B-29 now in that case? It would take HTC a lot of dev time to add the B-29, whereas many of the needed Japanese aircraft could be added in the same time.
I do think people grossly exaggerate the impact it would have on AH. The people who advocate for it also seem to ignore the resources it would cost to add it.
If the need for another perk bomber is so dire, the Mosquito B.Mk XVI or A-26 would take a fraction of the resources to add.
I didn't say that it should be added just yet, nor am I saying that you said I did. I whole heartily agree, that other planes should be added first before the B-29 gets factored into AH. The statement was aimed more toward the line of, "If we were to add it now...", type of thing. I should have worded it better but was hard pressed for time all of a sudden. Not paying attention to one's clock on a work day, can make one a little panicky. My own fault there. :rofl So I apologize if what I meant didn't get through properly.
Beefcake
Most of the counterparts that are in use are either too slow and/or lacks the firepower for certain SEA events. The other thing is, more realistic plane and tank line ups for SEA events. I believe that's what some of the folks are trying to get at. During the Marianas Turkey Shoot Frame 2, we had to use Ki-61's in place for the D4Y Judy. A horrible substitute seeing as the Ki-61 was not designed to land on carriers and did not carry as much ordinance as the Judy. It only carries half of what the D4Y can (551 lb vs 1,102 lb).
-
I'm going to ask you the same question.
What exactly is the need for any other fighter in AH? We already have a ton of fighters to do other fighters jobs.
Why do we need a P51H when we have the CHog?
Why do we need a 410 when we have the 110s and Mossie?
Why do we need Panther when we have the Firefly?
Why do we need a Ki43 when we have the Ki84?
Why do we need a Helldiver when we have the SBD?
Why do we need a Judy when we have the Kate & Val?
Why do we need the He111 when we have the Ju88?
etc etc etc
Do you see what I'm getting at? Pretty much every aircraft that is NOT in AH already has an AH counterpart that could do it's job. Does that mean we shouldn't add them because of that? No.
AH needs a perked bomber that can be used for a wider role than the Ar234. However, it doesn't have to be a B29, honestly I would like to see the glass nose A26 with drones. It could fly at what? 400 MPH with a decent gun defense and it could carry 8000lbs of ord.
Well Beefcake, I don't personally see why the AR234 exists in AH...it's as useful as the B-29 would be.
You need to look at the existing plane set and see the imbalances that exist...adding the B-29 is just putting gasoline on the fire...it would be much easier to fill those gaps with loadout options in the hangar to create modification models or make new ones than it would be to model the B-29...but then again, no one really gives a poop that significant aircraft that could and would be used extensively in special events as well as the MAs don't exist, and probably never will...but lets just fill up the boards with "I want the B-29" threads every month.
A divers plane set.
That's not what you can do with it...as in carry large bomb loads at very high alt or deliver a bomb load fast in 1 sector on the map...seriously, do you really need a 60,000lbs bomb load with 3 planes for any map?
-
That's not what you can do with it...as in carry large bomb loads at very high alt or deliver a bomb load fast in 1 sector on the map...seriously, do you really need a 60,000lbs bomb load with 3 planes for any map?
Thats why you perk the hell out of it. Then see how many ppl will up in it.
-
Thats why you perk the hell out of it. Then see how many ppl will up in it.
mmmhmmm...yeah...sure.
Tell me, why haven't you ever used the Ju-88, Stuka or Ki-67? Too slow, too vulnerable maybe not enough payload to do any good in one shot? Beefcake is the same way...as a matter of fact, neither has the OP of this thread.
I'm betting aside from the "cool factor"...those who are wanting the B-29 want to be able to do high alt milk runs and drop a base or town in a single run...nothing more.
-
there are more crucial aircraft that need to be added way before the b29, more Luftwaffe, Russian and Japanese planes for starters.
-
Don't worry guys I'm sure HTC is working on more WWII planes for us...Oh wait, they are working on WWI stuff.
-
Do you see what I'm getting at? Pretty much every aircraft that is NOT in AH already has an AH counterpart that could do it's job.
This is exactly why I think that planes should be added with no regard to how they will be used in the MA. Any plane at all that is added will not change gameplay in the MA in the least.
-
mmmhmmm...yeah...sure.
Tell me, why haven't you ever used the Ju-88, Stuka or Ki-67? Too slow, too vulnerable maybe not enough payload to do any good in one shot? Beefcake is the same way...as a matter of fact, neither has the OP of this thread.
I'm betting aside from the "cool factor"...those who are wanting the B-29 want to be able to do high alt milk runs and drop a base or town in a single run...nothing more.
how do you know i do not fly them? How do you know ppl are waiting for the b-29 so they can milk run on bases and town? What eals are you to used the B-29 for, in a furbal.
-
Lets face it, if we're getting a WW1 arena when the main focus has been WW2 aircraft, then eventually we WILL get a B-29, and theres nothing you can do to stop it. The only thing that will stop it is the demise of Aces High, and i'm SURE none of you want that.
We might not get it for 5 years, but we WILL get it.
-
Lets face it, if we're getting a WW1 arena when the main focus has been WW2 aircraft, then eventually we WILL get a B-29, and theres nothing you can do to stop it. The only thing that will stop it is the demise of Aces High, and i'm SURE none of you want that.
We might not get it for 5 years, but we WILL get it.
+1
-
5PointOh
To be honest, I'm quite excited to see them working on WWI fighters. I still remember the Red Baron days (DOS game for those who don't know). I had a blast with that game. There were a few other WWI games after that, but my DOS machine couldn't handle it and the next computer I got, was far too powerful to run them. I think the first plane I will take up will either be the Fokker Dr.1 or the Fokker D.VII.
As Nemisis said, "We might not get it for 5 years, but we WILL get it.". I agree. The HTC staff will eventually add B-29. :aok
-
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/B-29_Bomber_on_a_long_range_mission.jpg)
Look at this freakin' thing. It is too cool not to have.
Combine the wartime production totals of all the real life aircraft that are perked in this game.
Does that total come close to the number of B-29s that saw combat? Doubt it.
Griefers will be griefers and tards will be tards. They don't need perk fighters or bombers to do so. Though if AH can have the pinnacle of WWII fighters, some of the best tanks (and even uber Essex-class carriers), then it should also have the ultimate heavy bomber.
-
Hell, you don't see people complaining about the 262, and that think is damn near untouchable. When one is near a base, people avoid it untill it RTB's.
-
Hell, you don't see people complaining about the 262, and that think is damn near untouchable. When one is near a base, people avoid it untill it RTB's.
Yea, and now it is being used to the point that some ppl are flying it like a temps or spit.
-
how do you know i do not fly them? How do you know ppl are waiting for the b-29 so they can milk run on bases and town? What eals are you to used the B-29 for, in a furbal.
Just guessing by your stats over the last 6 months...and why else would anyone want a super late war bomber for besides milk runs? We gots to win deh warz... :x There are plenty of bombers that can do that now.
If the B-29 were added 5 years from now, that would be a good time line...maybe by then some of the gaps would be filled and it would make sense.
Hell, you don't see people complaining about the 262, and that think is damn near untouchable. When one is near a base, people avoid it untill it RTB's.
I don't avoid the 262...and it can be touched, even with a lowly 190A8...and yes people do complain about, i.e. "if we have the 262 why not have the B29?" line of thinking.
Caldera, there weren't that many produced in comparison to some planes in AH...something like 2800...there were just a lot of sorties flown by the ones that were online from 44 to 45.
-
Hell, you don't see people complaining about the 262, and that think is damn near untouchable. When one is near a base, people avoid it untill it RTB's.
My squaddie got whacked by an i16 in his 262. It can be touched.
-
Just guessing by your stats over the last 6 months...and why else would anyone want a super late war bomber for besides milk runs? We gots to win deh warz... :x There are plenty of bombers that can do that now.
Super late? I would not say it is a super late but late bomber. And what eals is the bomber suppose to do? get into dogfights? We only have three bomber that can "milk runs". bases.
-
OK, to spikes and greyene81:
Damn near, when flown properly, asside from lucky hits. If they're flown properly, they won't make turn except to line up on a target, and to come around for another pass. Pretty hard to catch them when they're coming in from a dive and have 550mph.
-
Lets face it, if we're getting a WW1 arena when the main focus has been WW2 aircraft, then eventually we WILL get a B-29, and theres nothing you can do to stop it. The only thing that will stop it is the demise of Aces High, and i'm SURE none of you want that.
We might not get it for 5 years, but we WILL get it.
and thats why AW used to have a WWI arena before the group separated to make this wonderful game and its evilll counterpart with its evilllly better graphics but pooooor game quality :aok :banana: banana but what plane can climb to 35k with full load and have a max speed of 350 mph at alt to counter the B29 in game? and btw its 40k limit was when it was stripped bare with only a nuke strapped to its belly
-
Can you please claify? I don't follow you.
-
OK, to spikes and greyene81:
Damn near, when flown properly, asside from lucky hits. If they're flown properly, they won't make turn except to line up on a target, and to come around for another pass. Pretty hard to catch them when they're coming in from a dive and have 550mph.
Well duh, that is what they were designed to do...I love people who complain about "picking 262s". I mean, does someone really want a 262 to turn fight with them?
-
I meant that its not the first time that we have had WWI just not in this game yet... AW had WWI before they split up so i understand that we're getting it before other WWII craft
-
5PointOh
To be honest, I'm quite excited to see them working on WWI fighters. I still remember the Red Baron days (DOS game for those who don't know). I had a blast with that game. There were a few other WWI games after that, but my DOS machine couldn't handle it and the next computer I got, was far too powerful to run them. I think the first plane I will take up will either be the Fokker Dr.1 or the Fokker D.VII.
As Nemisis said, "We might not get it for 5 years, but we WILL get it.". I agree. The HTC staff will eventually add B-29. :aok
I respect the fact that some are excited for WWI, but I came to AH for WWII, and truely wish they would have at least updated the rest of the current planes before branching off onto to WWI. I mean look at the P-40s FM2, A6Ms ect ect that have not recieved an update, yet very popular throughout the game.
-
Just guessing by your stats over the last 6 months...and why else would anyone want a super late war bomber for besides milk runs? We gots to win deh warz... :x There are plenty of bombers that can do that now.
If the B-29 were added 5 years from now, that would be a good time line...maybe by then some of the gaps would be filled and it would make sense.
I don't avoid the 262...and it can be touched, even with a lowly 190A8...and yes people do complain about, i.e. "if we have the 262 why not have the B29?" line of thinking.
Caldera, there weren't that many produced in comparison to some planes in AH...something like 2800...there were just a lot of sorties flown by the ones that were online from 44 to 45.
You actually looked up his stats???
You just can't accept that some people have a different outlook than you do on the subject.
If its not your way, its no way.
-
Well duh, that is what they were designed to do...I love people who complain about "picking 262s". I mean, does someone really want a 262 to turn fight with them?
I guess you have not yet went 1 v 1 with grizz or kappa. Last night i (p-51) fought grizz (262) in a mid speed scissor fight. I really can not figure how he turns that 262 like a spit, accelerated it like a spit and clime so well at low speed. It was a good 5 min fight but he got me with some BS uber move.
-
I turn fought with Grizz when I caught him going home in my 234. We duked it out going further and further to his base for about 5 minutes. Got hits on him and hurt him but he got me in the end, low n slow 234 vs a helluva shot with a tater...who did you think was gunna win? :)
-
I turn fought with Grizz when I caught him going home in my 234. We duked it out going further and further to his base for about 5 minutes. Got hits on him and hurt him but he got me in the end, low n slow 234 vs a helluva shot with a tater...who did you think was gunna win? :)
234 VS 262? hummm. I would pick the 262.
-
IDK, whenever your in a 262, those things are made of paper. But then again, so is anything.
-
234 VS 262? hummm. I would pick the 262.
I'm currently 1-1 vs a 262 lifetime in the 234.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png)
-
I'm currently 1-1 vs a 262 lifetime in the 234.
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/Aces%20High%20II/ddddddd.png)
HAHA, yea i saw that pic a while back. now go 1 vs 1 with him in a fighter plane and see how he fly it. most impressive for a 262/
-
HAHA, yea i saw that pic a while back. now go 1 vs 1 with him in a fighter plane and see how he fly it. most impressive for a 262/
Oh I agree with you there, wasn't trying to argue he woudn't fight. But the general population will sit on their perch. I even had Grizz approach me on how to fly the 234, I felt honored. :P
-
Oh I agree with you there, wasn't trying to argue he woudn't fight. But the general population will sit on their perch. I even had Grizz approach me on how to fly the 234, I felt honored. :P
lol, him approaching you for help. that is a bit surprise. i guess even the best need help on how to flt something.
-
how do you aim the guns on the back of a 234?
-
how do you aim the guns on the back of a 234?
F3
-
mmmhmmm...yeah...sure.
Tell me, why haven't you ever used the Ju-88, Stuka or Ki-67? Too slow, too vulnerable maybe not enough payload to do any good in one shot? Beefcake is the same way...as a matter of fact, neither has the OP of this thread.
I'm betting aside from the "cool factor"...those who are wanting the B-29 want to be able to do high alt milk runs and drop a base or town in a single run...nothing more.
gyrene do you know what my favorite plane to fly in AH is? The B25C. And I only fly it in the Late War Arena. I usually die in it but I like the challenge of trying to make through enemy lines to drop on a contested base. The B25C is rather slow, has a tiny bomb load, and has the poorest reward defense of any medium bomber in the game, yet it's my favorite to fly.
Secondly I don't milk run in this game. Ask around. I'm the type of buff pilot who likes to fly and test his gunnery skills. I could care less about bombing, in fact many times I just go and bomb the runway at an enemy base with the hopes of getting a few planes to up and intercept me. To me the thrill of combat is facing a pilot who KNOWS how to kill buffs and getting test my gunnery against their tactics. This is even made more fun by doing it in a B25. :D
At this point I really don't care if the B29 was added to the game or not. However, I do wish us buff pilots could get a new ride. An He-111 would be quite fun right now and would be a nice change from my B25. But I'd be happy with anything.
-
gyrene do you know what my favorite plane to fly in AH is? The B25C. And I only fly it in the Late War Arena. I usually die in it but I like the challenge of trying to make through enemy lines to drop on a contested base. The B25C is rather slow, has a tiny bomb load, and has the poorest reward defense of any medium bomber in the game, yet it's my favorite to fly.
Secondly I don't milk run in this game. Ask around. I'm the type of buff pilot who likes to fly and test his gunnery skills. I could care less about bombing, in fact many times I just go and bomb the runway at an enemy base with the hopes of getting a few planes to up and intercept me. To me the thrill of combat is facing a pilot who KNOWS how to kill buffs and getting test my gunnery against their tactics. This is even made more fun by doing it in a B25. :D
Wait... :headscratch:
Here I was thinking your favorite bomber was the B-17...all your stats seem to point in that direction...at least you've gotten killed in it more than the other bombers (on average).
I always thought the B-17 was the coolest bomber of WWII...anything nicknamed "flying fortress" with as many stories as that plane was just too cool.
And I think it's better looking than the B-29...
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Midland2007/Highlights/B17Midland07.jpg)
Compared to this?
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/B-29_Bomber_on_a_long_range_mission.jpg)
B-17 all the way
-
The B17 is the plane I fly the most, and it's my second favorite plane, but the B25 is my pride and joy. I will admit I don't fly the B25 into areas where I KNOW I'm going to get slaughtered so that's why I fly the B17 far more often.
Edit: And yes I agree, the B17 is far sexier than the B29. ;)
-
Wait... :headscratch:
Here I was thinking your favorite bomber was the B-17...all your stats seem to point in that direction...at least you've gotten killed in it more than the other bombers (on average).
I always thought the B-17 was the coolest bomber of WWII...anything nicknamed "flying fortress" with as many stories as that plane was just too cool.
And I think it's better looking than the B-29...
(http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Midland2007/Highlights/B17Midland07.jpg)
Compared to this?
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/B-29_Bomber_on_a_long_range_mission.jpg)
B-17 all the way
You do not think name "Superfortress" is cool? i kind like the name of both bombers and the "Dominator". There is something funny looking about the B-32. Not sure if it is the nose or the huge tail it has.
-
You do not think name "Superfortress" is cool? i kind like the name of both bombers and the "Dominator". There is something funny looking about the B-32. Not sure if it is the nose or the huge tail it has.
The name is cool but...look at that picture, take the wings and tail section off and what do you have? hint - starts with a d and ends with an o The B-17 just looks like it's made for any trouble it can get into.
You're right there is something funny looking about the B-32...
(http://www.macarthurmemorial.org/MacArthurs_Airmen/images/B-32_Dominator_LightBox.jpg)
Almost looks like they took the B-25 body...stuck B-24 wings on it...then added the B-29 tail section to it...geez what a frankenstein.
-
The name is cool but...look at that picture, take the wings and tail section off and what do you have? hint - starts with a d and ends with an o The B-17 just looks like it's made for any trouble it can get into.
You're right there is something funny looking about the B-32...
(http://www.macarthurmemorial.org/MacArthurs_Airmen/images/B-32_Dominator_LightBox.jpg)
Almost looks like they took the B-25 body...stuck B-24 wings on it...then added the B-29 tail section to it...geez what a frankenstein.
lol
I see more of a B-26 fuselage, B-17 nose, b-24 wing and b-29 tail. But in all it is a funny looking bomber.
-
Well I see a B-26 fuselage and nose (single gun, first thing I noticed, and it has the same type of framing on it too), wings halfway between a B-17 and a B-24, and an elongated B-29 tail.
-
Almost looks like they took the B-25 body...stuck B-24 wings on it...then added the B-29 tail section to it...geez what a frankenstein.
When originally designed and the first prototypes built, the B-32 looked like a larger B-24. It even had similiar twin tails but stability problems caused the twin tails to be changed with the B-29 tail.
ack-ack
-
When originally designed and the first prototypes built, the B-32 looked like a larger B-24. It even had similiar twin tails but stability problems caused the twin tails to be changed with the B-29 tail.
ack-ack
Really, i did not know that. Thank god they change it.
-
Yea, and now it is being used to the point that some ppl are flying it like a temps or spit.
Some of us have enough perks that we can make the ME 262 our main ride without ever having to worry about running out of perks. /shrug.
ack-ack
-
Some of us have enough perks that we can make the ME 262 our main ride without ever having to worry about running out of perks. /shrug.
ack-ack
LOL, Yea there are a few out there that has no worries about it.
-
LOL, Yea there are a few out there that has no worries about it.
Congrats oakranger you made this topics 200th post.
-
Congrats oakranger you made this topics 200th post.
lol. is this the most for any B-29 topic?
-
lol. is this the most for any B-29 topic?
:lol Probably.
Some of us have enough perks that we can make the ME 262 our main ride without ever having to worry about running out of perks. /shrug.
ack-ack
You could probably have it cost 2k a plane, and some people would still not worry about the perks. :noid
-
can you guys let this thread die and start a new one? It is february 10, A NEW MONTH, please start another b29 thread dont forget to include only the arguments that have been brought up less than 100 times in prior threads. any argument for/against that has been brought up more than 100 times is not valid anymore and must be re-justified with up to date graphs/links/pictures. as a reminder the graphs/links/pictures must also not have been posted more than 100 times in the past year. any link/picture/graph, more than a year old can be posted again. thank you :D
semp
-
can you guys let this thread die and start a new one? It is february 10, A NEW MONTH, please start another b29 thread dont forget to include only the arguments that have been brought up less than 100 times in prior threads. any argument for/against that has been brought up more than 100 times is not valid anymore and must be re-justified with up to date graphs/links/pictures. as a reminder the graphs/links/pictures must also not have been posted more than 100 times in the past year. any link/picture/graph, more than a year old can be posted again. thank you :D
semp
Well, that pretty much leaves this entire thread still valid... :D
-
Some of us have enough perks that we can make the ME 262 our main ride without ever having to worry about running out of perks. /shrug.
ack-ack
Now there would be an interesting experiment, I have more perk points than I can shake a stick at, but at the same time I'm such a bad shot with the guns on the 262 that I inevitably ram whatever it is that I'm shooting at before I actually land any hits.
I wonder how long I could go before I'd exhaust all my perks. :)
-
Well, that pretty much leaves this entire thread still valid... :D
strangely haha youre right. i think this whole thread has been under the 100 limit the entire time :rolleyes: :rofl
-
:)
-
RUBBER DUCKY! :banana:
-
Skuzzy = b29 god!!! LOL
-
I'd have to disagree with this request. Yes The Rubber Ducky does belong in the bath tub but we currently have so many gaps in the bathroom that need to be filled first. What about soap and shampoo? Those need to be modeled badly, also the toy submarine desperately needs to be updated since it won't float upright.
-
I'd have to disagree with this request. Yes The Rubber Ducky does belong in the bath tub but we currently have so many gaps in the bathroom that need to be filled first. What about soap and shampoo? Those need to be modeled badly, also the toy submarine desperately needs to be updated since it won't float upright.
BUBBLES!!! We need bubbles!!!
~ Bubbles! My bubbles!~
-
LOL Skuzzy...love the censor!!!!
-
:rofl
For a moment, I couldn't find the original post and thought Skuzzy deleted it for some reason. A quick search and...this. What the Spork!? LOL Only read through some of the first posts again, but it made me laugh. :aok :rofl
-
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/200903071133.jpg)
Look out, it's comin' right for us!
-
Whack! Whack! You've been rubber duckied!
Glad to see folks still have a sense of humor. <S>
-
:rofl Oh yeah. I started laughing my arse off when I saw what you did. :rofl This really gets me tempted to go active right now. But I really want to get a new machine built so I can enjoy maxed graphics in the middle of a HUGE furball. :aok It's awesome to see that the HTC staff likes to have fun on the forums every now and again. :rock
caldera, that is the bain of any cv group in AH. The ULTIMATE cv killer. :devil :lol
Back to topic: lol
The B-29 was compressed so the crew didn't have to use oxygen masks when flying up so high. How would THAT factor into it when it gets hit here in AH? Sudden decompression of a plane proves quite bad a lot of the times. That would seem to be a coding nightmare in itself. :O
-
Whack! Whack! You've been rubber duckied!
Glad to see folks still have a sense of humor. <S>
OK, I will proudly say that i am a bit slow in this. What did I miss there skuzzy?
-
OK, I will proudly say that i am a bit slow in this. What did I miss there skuzzy?
skuzzy whacked us with a rubber duck of course! :x and im proud to say its better to talk of bath toys more than the B29 again and again :rolleyes:
-
Rubber duck
=
next year's evil con mishun
raht thar
-
So basically this topic is a dead duck in water.
-
no. its a dead duckie in my tub of doom
-
why do some of the titles say rubber ducky, and others say B-29 :confused:?
-
skuzzy decided to have fun
-
Maybe we can have a rubber ducky instead of a B29. :D
-
Maybe we can have a rubber ducky instead of a B29. :D
What kind of bomb load and guns will it have. Max speed, clime rate, service alt and range.
-
What kind of bomb load and guns will it have. Max speed, clime rate, service alt and range.
It will fly high in the air then fire it's MEGA QUACK GUN'S and destroy us.
-
did someone say duck
(http://hamiltonandtroup.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/us20marine20firing20aa-1220full-auto20shotgun2028aa1220machine20shotgun29.jpg)
-
It will fly high in the air then fire it's MEGA QUACK GUN'S and destroy us.
lol
-
It will fly high in the air then fire it's MEGA QUACK GUN'S and destroy us.
Just like the rubber ducky quacked and destroyed your thread. :neener:
-
Just like the rubber ducky quacked and destroyed your thread. :neener:
That must be a real mean rubber ducky. :rofl
-
did someone say duck
(http://hamiltonandtroup.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/us20marine20firing20aa-1220full-auto20shotgun2028aa1220machine20shotgun29.jpg)
i always wanted an AA12 auto shotgun
-
Brace yourselves;
want
won't
yes
fair
really
original
aaaaaaaaannnnnnd....
.,;:!"?
-
I want a rubber ducky now. :cry
-
The excuse I got for this was the B29 had to many machine guns people would up it just to shoot down other fighters.
-
The excuse I got for this was the B29 had to many machine guns people would up it just to shoot down other fighters.
And you heard that from?
-
And you heard that from?
The squirrels with cameras that are there for his protection.
-
what good would be served by a 375mph bomber?
Give 262's a nice target. And I'm for the 29.
-
Maybe we can have a rubber ducky instead of a B29. :D
Would be funny if a loadout for the B-29 was 20,000 rubber ducky's and when they hit they would all squeak, like audio warfare.
-
Forgive me for not reading all 16 pages... It seems like Hitech said the remotely aimed guns would be hard to coad.. I think we should add it just so I can vultch your 2000 perk elephant as it lumbers down the runway.
-
How about we have it so you can see from a gun cam view when looking fowrward and as you move your head back, you can see the edges of the screen. This would simulate looking into the screen for the camera. And then we slave the head position inside the bomber when looking any direction but forward, that way, it looks like you're using a remote gun turret.
As long as it functions like a remote turret, and it looks like its a remote turret, then its a remote turret. No one is going to go into the servers and inspect to see if we really coaded a screen giving you a rearward view from the camera by the tail gun.
Remote guns issue solved
-
How about we have it so you can see from a gun cam view when looking fowrward and as you move your head back, you can see the edges of the screen. This would simulate looking into the screen for the camera. And then we slave the head position inside the bomber when looking any direction but forward, that way, it looks like you're using a remote gun turret.
As long as it functions like a remote turret, and it looks like its a remote turret, then its a remote turret. No one is going to go into the servers and inspect to see if we really coaded a screen giving you a rearward view from the camera by the tail gun.
Remote guns issue solved
Wow so simple why didnt someone think of this before!! I think "we " should get to it right away,by "we" I mean you! Since you seem to know exactly how to do it by all means go for it.... :joystick:
-
Would be funny if a loadout for the B-29 was 20,000 rubber ducky's and when they hit they would all squeak, like audio warfare.
+1 :aok haha
-
And you heard that from?
My Co earshot.
-
Wow so simple why didnt someone think of this before!! I think "we " should get to it right away,by "we" I mean you! Since you seem to know exactly how to do it by all means go for it.... :joystick:
If you can see any holes in my idea, go ahead and say so. And if I tried to coad anything harder than a wall, it would be riddled with bugs.
-
Anyway the reason I got because the thing has was to many machine guns is a good point.Plus Ive seen kinda of a pattern here everysingle bomber that has a 20mm and a bigger load then a b25 lets say is not gonna be on the game.If so then probably a perked plane.
-
So you think the b29 would be perked? Really??
-
Most of the B-29 sorties flown during the war only had guns at the tail position the others having been removed to save on weight. LeMay had decided that high altitude bombers were not as effective and so he wanted the bomers to fly lower and faster. So shortly after they bombers were flying out of Iwo they were stripped of most of their guns.
This is why I 'suggested' many months ago that IF the B-29 were ever to come into the game that only 3/4 fuel loads and above would have the option for the full gun package. Logically it should also sortie with max-fuel paired with limited bombs and max-bombs paired with limited fuel even though the plane was certainly 'over-engineered' to fly with both max loads it seldom if ever flew that way.
-
Most of the B-29 sorties flown during the war only had guns at the tail position the others having been removed to save on weight. LeMay had decided that high altitude bombers were not as effective and so he wanted the bomers to fly lower and faster. So shortly after they bombers were flying out of Iwo they were stripped of most of their guns.
This is why I 'suggested' many months ago that IF the B-29 were ever to come into the game that only 3/4 fuel loads and above would have the option for the full gun package. Logically it should also sortie with max-fuel paired with limited bombs and max-bombs paired with limited fuel even though the plane was certainly 'over-engineered' to fly with both max loads it seldom if ever flew that way.
This is a good idea.
-
Why does everyone just ask for the B-29? Ask for a variant.
If we do get the 29, and thats a big "if", we should get the B-29B. The only defensive weapons the B-29B had were the tail guns. It would allow fighters that did intercept it to destroy it easily if they knew what they were doing. This would counter the superior speed and payload with subpar defensive capabilities.
-
The B would be a terrible, unperkable choice......... The HTC version of the B29 is the A model.
Why does everyone just ask for the B-29? Ask for a variant.
If we do get the 29, and thats a big "if", we should get the B-29B. The only defensive weapons the B-29B had were the tail guns. It would allow fighters that did intercept it to destroy it easily if they knew what they were doing. This would counter the superior speed and payload with subpar defensive capabilities.
-
How would it be a terrible, unperkable choice?
It would still carry 20,000 lbs of bombs. It would still have a top speed of 360 at 25k. It would still have a service ceiling of 32k. The range was 4,200 miles with 18,000lbs of bombs.
The B-29A had 12x .50s and 1x 20mm. It would be highly perked, and chances are you would know how to gun if you could afford a formation. No fighter could touch that. Imagine 999000 with 39 guns pointed at you.
Info from: http://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=2530
-
Yeah the B model doesn't sound like much fun but we would probably get that first.
-
I'd prefer the B-29Πmodel.
Why?
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST!
-
great idea! +1
-
I think there should be a b29 on the late war arenas. I twould need a high perk, but maybe have a nuke for a bomb load
-
B29 is a great bomber,you half to remember though japan basically surrendered because of this plane and the atomic bomb.Now of course do not put a atomic bomb on here unless were bombing the city and it takes out lets say 4 city blocks 8 or so.Just put a nice choice of bombs on here and take some of the guns out of it.
-
B29 is a great bomber,you half to remember though japan basically surrendered because of this plane and the atomic bomb.Now of course do not put a atomic bomb on here unless were bombing the city and it takes out lets say 4 city blocks 8 or so.Just put a nice choice of bombs on here and take some of the guns out of it.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :confused:
I can guarantee you that Nagasaki and Hiroshima had more than..."say 4 or 8 city blocks" vaporized off of this Earth. Spend more time working on sentence structure and less time on a plane that does not belong in this game.
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :confused:
I can guarantee you that Nagasaki and Hiroshima had more than..."say 4 or 8 city blocks" vaporized off of this Earth. Spend more time working on sentence structure and less time on a plane that does not belong in this game.
Yes but what am I gonna say have a 1 bomb take out the hole city.When it takes B17 and B24 dozens of bombs to destroy the city.
-
I think there should be a b29 on the late war arenas. I twould need a high perk, but maybe have a nuke for a bomb load
No nukes it's hard to take a base when it's radioactive.
earthquake bomb for the lanc would be nice though.
and keep all the guns on the B-29 it doesn't have any more guns on it in real life then the B-17.
On the boeing website it states for the B- 17
"Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load",
and for the B-29
"Armament: 12 .50-caliber machine guns, 1 20 mm cannon, 20,000-pound bomb load",
same amount of guns just one is a cannon.
-
Same number of guns? Maybe. Same firepower? HECK NO! This plane blows plenty of things out of proportion. All this has been explained previously.
-
But you have to remember, bombers aren't too terribly dangerous if you don't do anything stupid, and provided 999000 isn't gunning.
-
But you have to remember, bombers aren't too terribly dangerous if you don't do anything stupid, and provided 999000 isn't gunning.
my zero can still beat his gunmanship :aok
-
I say put it in the game without gunners
-
We can't screw with the rules for no good reason beyond lessening the impact of a plane.
My reason for adding it are as follows:
1) We have a 262, and a 163 (the latter saw less use than the B-29 by far), so we're taken care of for interceptors (if you really feel threatened by the B-29, you can up a 163, use 1/4 fuel to climb/accelerate to a good gliding level, and glide to the forward bases)
2) We have the Ta-152 and P-47M/N for when they're super high (30K +) and away from the 163 enabled bases.
3) Just about every other fighter we have can deal with them when low (even the P-40B provided its packing some alt and speed).
4) You're all paranoid, thinking that if its perked at 400 or so, there will be way more than there are 262's. The tiger is perked at less than 50 usually, and yet you see relatively few of them comared to M4's and T-34/85's. Another example is the Tempest, perked relatively low, and yet there are fewer of them in each tour as opposed to most other rides.
5) You're over estimating its impact on the game as far as its survivability goes. Its still a bomber, and unless someones asleep at the switch, they aren't going to get through.
-
But you have to remember, bombers aren't too terribly dangerous if you don't do anything stupid, and provided 999000 isn't gunning.
Big words from someone who doesn't have a positive K/D ratio against any bomber beside the Lancaster.
-
In regards to the B-29's use, you yourself know every squeaker, teen and adult knows what a B-29 is, what it did, and how "superior" it was. You really think they won't try to use it for the sake of recreating history?
-
I do think they will try to use it, but that most will use it poorly. Bomber perks aren't too terribly hard to come by as you earn perks regardless of weather or not you land (usually). That means that the pilot skill doesn't have to be good to get perks. A newb just plugging away could earn enough perks for a B-29 given enough time.
Motherland, I'm usually in a hurry when hunting buffs (I don't go out hunting them specificly), and so I don't usually have time to set up a good attack. If lancs near a base about to plaster hangers, then I'll just go in and tear them up, and when my ammo is gone (if it is), I'll try to knock a wing off by ramming them.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WARNING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RAM TRAD APPROACHING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
I will if they're bombers, and I don't really care what you have to say on the matter. For me, if I knock one down and save a fight, then its worth it.
-
I will if they're bombers, and I don't really care what you have to say on the matter. For me, if I knock one down and save a fight, then its worth it.
What are the chances of taking one down by ramming vs you dying trying?
-
IDK the exact odds, but I'm guessing its around 5-1. But concidering I don't usually make it back to a base, I figure if I knock half its wing off, he can't bomb with that plane, so he has to bail, lessening the damage he can do.
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WARNING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^RAM TARD APPROACHING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
fixed. btw, only two nukes were used in the war. along with the fact that with the destruction we created using conventional warfare in WWII these two nukes only created (what was it?) 1:100th of the destruction throughout the war by the allies in europe alone?
-
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^WARNING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^TARD APPROACHING!^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Reason for borrowing your post oakranger:
btw, only two nukes were used in the war. along with the fact that with the destruction we created using conventional warfare in WWII these two nukes only created (what was it?) 1:100th of the destruction throughout the war by the allies in europe alone?
Yes, but we weren't event talking about nukes......
-
Prior to the decision to use the B-29 serious consideration had been given to using the British Avro Lancaster to deliver the weapon, which would have required much less modification, but the idea was vetoed by General Groves who thought it "beyond comprehension to use a British plane to deliver an American A-bomb".
So. If the Lancaster had dropped the A bomb. Would we have the B29 instead of it?
-
IDK the exact odds, but I'm guessing its around 5-1. But concidering I don't usually make it back to a base, I figure if I knock half its wing off, he can't bomb with that plane, so he has to bail, lessening the damage he can do.
Well, if it works, congratulations. If it doesn't, at least you try. Try to go for the pilot wounded shot.
-
What we need in the game is something more to bomb.They have the big city but you half to wait a couple days for a base to get close if it even happens,also you gotta fly like 10 sectors to get there.We need like some neat things to bomb like damns or little ships in port make a train station.The little things like that.Plus they gotta have purpose damns blowing up with some how shut off water supply ships wont be able to make it to ports to re-sup them and so on.B29 is a great plane but it needs more then just 2 cities and a couple factories to bomb.
-
So. If the Lancaster had dropped the A bomb. Would we have the B29 instead of it?
No.
Ordnance weight limit.
-
Have a question. What is the best way to rack up buff perks? I used to use the strats in Ju88s (NOT FOR SCORE) but since they are gone, the only ways I could do it is bombing CV's in 88s. Used to get 20+ perks a run if the sides were unbalanced. Any tips? I have 2 bomber perks to my name and miss out flying 234s with Glasher.
-
No.
Ordnance weight limit.
the lanc could drop the 22000 lb grand slam bomb. Thats not too far off from the b17 I believe
-
the lanc could drop the 22000 lb grand slam bomb. Thats not too far off from the b17 I believe
Bet it would be interesting watching Lancs try to take that Grand Slam from Saipan to Hiroshima
though. Hope the Brits are good swimmers, that's alot of water to cross :D
-
the lanc could drop the 22000 lb grand slam bomb. Thats not too far off from the b17 I believe
By ordnance weight limitations I'm referring to HTC's limitations. The last statement limited ordnance to 4,000 pounds maximum.
-
Have a question. What is the best way to rack up buff perks? I used to use the strats in Ju88s (NOT FOR SCORE) but since they are gone, the only ways I could do it is bombing CV's in 88s. Used to get 20+ perks a run if the sides were unbalanced. Any tips? I have 2 bomber perks to my name and miss out flying 234s with Glasher.
Go to an undefended base or to the MW arena, and destroy a town, land, and repeat. I've gotten around 5 perks per run at times. Slower than your way (as far as perks per run), but you don't have to hunt down a CV, or waste time flying to the strats in a B-25C.
Also, try GV boming in the boston, I've gotten 3 perks for 2 kills I didn't land. Strafe what you can't bomb, so you still get the assists.
-
Go to an undefended base or to the MW arena, and destroy a town, land, and repeat. I've gotten around 5 perks per run at times. Slower than your way (as far as perks per run), but you don't have to hunt down a CV, or waste time flying to the strats in a B-25C.
Also, try GV boming in the boston, I've gotten 3 perks for 2 kills I didn't land. Strafe what you can't bomb, so you still get the assists.
A few I have done in the past...all work well. Another I like to do is fly into the biggest red dar bar in an IL2 with 23mms and take as many as I can down with me. :)
-
Go to an undefended base or to the MW arena, and destroy a town, land, and repeat. I've gotten around 5 perks per run at times. Slower than your way (as far as perks per run), but you don't have to hunt down a CV, or waste time flying to the strats in a B-25C.
Also, try GV boming in the boston, I've gotten 3 perks for 2 kills I didn't land. Strafe what you can't bomb, so you still get the assists.
I have no idea how you can say this without blushing. Score padding isn't something I would brag about.
-
Reason for borrowing your post oakranger:
Yes, but we weren't event talking about nukes......
somebody said nukes... and btw, do you have it out for me? it seems like every corner i take youre there shutting me down :huh
-
Go to an undefended base or to the MW arena, and destroy a town, land, and repeat. ... Strafe what you can't bomb, so you still get the assists
:rolleyes:
-
I have no idea how you can say this without blushing. Score padding isn't something I would brag about.
This is how to score pad but I don't use it in that sort of way. As an Ar234 dweeb I am constantly low on perks after putting my sexy airplane in harms way just to blow guys up with my rear guns. :)
-
I have no idea how you can say this without blushing. Score padding isn't something I would brag about.
Not score padding, I ususally do preliminary bomb drops on bases we want to take. I usually try to take a squadie with me in a goon incase I drop the whole town, that way I can strafe any guns I miss (fly 600' AGL and use the gun turrets), and do a quick take.
I just figure that if I can get some perks for bombing the crap out of an undefended base we want to take, spikes can do it to a base he's scouted out and actually take his time in dropping bombs.
-
Not score padding, I ususally do preliminary bomb drops on bases we want to take. I usually try to take a squadie with me in a goon incase I drop the whole town, that way I can strafe any guns I miss (fly 600' AGL and use the gun turrets), and do a quick take.
I just figure that if I can get some perks for bombing the crap out of an undefended base we want to take, spikes can do it to a base he's scouted out and actually take his time in dropping bombs.
Yes. Yes it is.
-
OK, its how you score pad, but for me it isn't score padding, its a tactical bomb drop in wich I get rewarded for destroying 80% of the town in a B-25C and then putting it down on a turning carrier without damage.
If you're saying I'm score padding, then by your logic, I'm score padding everytime I take up a P-51B or an FM2 (despite the fact that I'm doing so to push myself).
The only area I have an even halfway decent score in is GV'ing, and is probably the only reason I have a rank below 1000 instead of above 2000. Its damn hard to score pad in a GV since the perks you earn for buildings destroyed without landing is small, and most enemy town aren't within driving distance.
-
Not score padding, I ususally do preliminary bomb drops on bases we want to take. I usually try to take a squadie with me in a goon incase I drop the whole town, that way I can strafe any guns I miss (fly 600' AGL and use the gun turrets), and do a quick take.
I just figure that if I can get some perks for bombing the crap out of an undefended base we want to take, spikes can do it to a base he's scouted out and actually take his time in dropping bombs.
How about milkrunning?
wrongway
-
We should have every little gun be maned on are planes every little gun able to be maned.
-
:huh there's a whole list of bombers that need to be in the game before the B29 :salute
-
We should have every little gun be maned on are planes every little gun able to be maned.
There's reasons this feature is not available. Utilize the secret weapon (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php?action=search;advanced).
-
How about milkrunning?
Honestly, if I see "mission heading to A35 up, join rooks", then I up bombers and go plaster the hangers or the town. If someone asks me to leave the hangers up, the I do, if not, then the go down 5mins before mission rolls in to take the base.
If I actually sough out bases with little to no defenders at them, then I would be milkrunning. Its not my fault if the knits or bish don't have guys at a base with a 5k alt advantage, thats their fault. Same as if they don't respond to a CV attack on the edge of the map, giving us 5 bases in their rear to work out of.
I think your giving me a bad time because I'm me, and because I gave honestly gained knowledge of how you COULD score pad to spikes. Next you're going to be ragging on me for shooting down a squadie if switches sides to mess up my bombing run.
-
How about milkrunning?
wrongway
OK. New term. Pointpadding.
There ya go. So I can own you in the MA with my 234. ;)
-
Well the B29 is a perfect plane to destroy the strat 81st loves these strat runs but no plane would work better then probably the B29.Also is there a better plane for escorting bombers that has speed,good handling,ammo, and how long it can stay up in the air.
-
IMO, the P-51D or P-51B are the best at escorting. IDK the exact lenght of time it can stay in the air, but it can escort a bomber to the strats on any map where you could hit them in a reasonable ammount of time.
-
IMO, the P-51D or P-51B are the best at escorting. IDK the exact lenght of time it can stay in the air, but it can escort a bomber to the strats on any map where you could hit them in a reasonable ammount of time.
add the P47 D40 and up to this list :aok
-
Doesn't really have the range to be a great strat escort IMO. Only toward the end when we have bases closer to the strats. And the 47M makes a much better escort than the D40.
-
IMO, the P-51D or P-51B are the best at escorting. IDK the exact lenght of time it can stay in the air, but it can escort a bomber to the strats on any map where you could hit them in a reasonable ammount of time.
So can the P-38 with 100% fuel and 2 DTs and still have some left after landing. It's also true of quite a lot of other planes in AH, not just something the P-51B/D can do.
ack-ack
-
Rubber ducky still! bet ya 50 bucks i get some warning for bumping this for no reason :banana:
-
So can the P-38 with 100% fuel and 2 DTs and still have some left after landing. It's also true of quite a lot of other planes in AH, not just something the P-51B/D can do.
ack-ack
Yes, I said "best at", not "the only planes capable of". I also said in my oppinion. IMO, the P-51 offers the best compromise of manuverability, speed, firepower, climb rate, and it comes with all that range :banana:.
-
rubba ducks are better than arguing
-
WOW, this is the longest thread for B-29.
-
WOW, this is the longest thread for B-29.
You like it. :cheers:
-
The B-29 was a great plane just put it in here give it any modifications that don't go well with the game like the nook and such.
-
Yes, I said "best at", not "the only planes capable of". I also said in my oppinion. IMO, the P-51 offers the best compromise of manuverability, speed, firepower, climb rate, and it comes with all that range :banana:.
In the scenario DGS, in each frame, the bombers that our (SAPP)'s P38s escorted had the least losses.
-
+1 for the b29 :aok
-
In the scenario DGS, in each frame, the bombers that our (SAPP)'s P38s escorted had the least losses.
Did you have a higher ratio of expierenced pilots, or were you better suited to dealing with the enemies you encountered? And if so, do you still take the lower rate of losses to mean that the P-38 is superior?
I could stack an expert Il-2 pilot aginst a newb P-38 pilot, but the resulting loss of a P-38 doesn't indicate wich plane is better, only that the P-38 driver was new.
Here's another one:
P-51 driver against Ack-Ack in his 38. Ack-Ack's kill on the P-51 doesn't say that the P-51 is inferior, only that Ack-Ack was flying his P-38 against a new or average P-51 driver.
-
The B-29 was a great plane just put it in here give it any modifications that don't go well with the game like the nook and such.
The nuke was not a stander bomb that it carry. so no need to even bring it up.
-
perk the spits!!!!!
semp
k makes as much sense as this thread
-
add the P47 D40 and up to this list :aok
Dont forget the D11s and D25s. They are just as capable. :D
-
Why is the D25 so rare? Is there some trade off you get for a minimal gain?
-
I love it! i revived this thread just by spouting out rubber ducky!!! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Why is the D25 so rare? Is there some trade off you get for a minimal gain?
cons: WEP isnt quite as strong as the D40, 4.5" rkts less bang and retain the launch tubes for more drag
pros: slightly better for perk farming, Greebo's wonderful RAF skin ;)
-
OK,I'm sure everybody wants the B29 in this game,but what plane would kill it?
-
OK,I'm sure everybody wants the B29 in this game,but what plane would kill it?
In real life the zero & most any Japanese fighter of it's day shot them down all the time. Why? because the B29 couldn't hit squat at high altitudes so when they were forced to bomb at lower levels they got shot down just like any bomber did. Now if your talking AHII it will be about the same as it is now it all depends on who is flying what.
-
In real life the zero & most any Japanese fighter of it's day shot them down all the time. Why? because the B29 couldn't hit squat at high altitudes so when they were forced to bomb at lower levels they got shot down just like any bomber did. Now if your talking AHII it will be about the same as it is now it all depends on who is flying what.
Those 262 pilots should be happy now. :)
-
ahem. I don't want the B29, I only requested the a26.
Semp
-
:huh if the b29 is in the game y cant i fly it in offline play i can fly the me162 and 263?
-
:huh if the b29 is in the game y cant i fly it in offline play i can fly the me162 and 263?
you need to reach plutonium on the bbs or ask a sapp member to lend you theirs.
-
you need to reach plutonium on the bbs or ask a sapp member to lend you theirs.
how?
-
how?
just butter them up by telling them how sexy their B38s are and they will usually hand over a B29 :bolt:
-
just butter them up by telling them how sexy their B38s are and they will usually hand over a B29 :bolt:
well who are they and cant i just ask?
-
well who are they and cant i just ask?
It's a secret
-
:noid
-
ok so what is a bbs?
-
The S in sapp stands for secret
-
ok so what is a bbs?
i did ask what bbs is right?
-
The Bulletin Boards you are posting on. :D
-
i did ask what bbs is right?
Bulletin Board--->S
-
who or what is plutonium?
-
(http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/images/smilies/popcorn.gif)
-
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(
94PuPeriodic table
Appearance
silvery white
General properties
Name, symbol, number plutonium, Pu, 94
Element category actinide
Group, period, block n/a, 7, f
Standard atomic weight (244) g·mol−1
Electron configuration [Rn] 5f6 7s2
Electrons per shell 2, 8, 18, 32, 24, 8, 2 (Image)
Physical properties
Phase solid
Density (near r.t.) 19.816 g·cm−3
Liquid density at m.p. 16.63 g·cm−3
Melting point 912.5 K, 639.4 °C, 1182.9 °F
Boiling point 3505 K, 3228 °C, 5842 °F
Heat of fusion 2.82 kJ·mol−1
Heat of vaporization 333.5 kJ·mol−1
Specific heat capacity (25 °C) 35.5 J·mol−1·K−1
Vapor pressure
P/Pa 1 10 100 1 k 10 k 100 k
at T/K 1756 1953 2198 2511 2926 3499
Atomic properties
Oxidation states 7, 6, 5, 4, 3
(amphoteric oxide)
Electronegativity 1.28 (Pauling scale)
Ionization energies 1st: 584.7 kJ·mol−1
Atomic radius 159 pm
Covalent radius 187±1 pm
Miscellanea
Crystal structure monoclinic
Magnetic ordering paramagnetic[1]
Electrical resistivity (0 °C) 1.460 µΩ·m
Thermal conductivity (300 K) 6.74 W·m−1·K−1
Thermal expansion (25 °C) 46.7 µm·m−1·K−1
Speed of sound 2260 m/s
Young's modulus 96 GPa
Shear modulus 43 GPa
Poisson ratio 0.21
CAS registry number 7440-07-5
Most stable isotopes
Main article: Isotopes of plutonium
iso NA half-life DM DE (MeV) DP
238Pu syn 88 y SF 204.66[2] —
α 5.5 234U
239Pu trace 2.41 × 104 y SF 207.06 —
α 5.157 235U
240Pu syn 6.5 × 103 y SF 205.66 —
α 5.256 236U
241Pu syn 14 y β− 0.02078 241Am
SF 210.83 —
242Pu syn 3.73 × 105 y SF 209.47 —
α 4.984 238U
244Pu trace 8.08 × 107 y α 4.666 240U
SF —
This box: view • talk • edit
Plutonium (pronounced /pluːˈtoʊniəm/ ploo-TOE-nee-əm) is a rare transuranic radioactive chemical element with the chemical symbol Pu and atomic number 94. It is an actinide metal of silvery-white appearance that tarnishes when exposed to air, forming a dull coating when oxidized. The element normally exhibits six allotropes and four oxidation states. It reacts with carbon, halogens, nitrogen and silicon. When exposed to moist air, it forms oxides and hydrides that expand the sample up to 70% in volume, which in turn flake off as a powder that can spontaneously ignite. It is also a radioactive poison that accumulates in bone marrow. These and other properties make the handling of plutonium dangerous.
The most important isotope of plutonium is plutonium-239, with a half-life of 24,100 years. Plutonium-239 and 241 are fissile, meaning the nuclei of their atoms can break apart by being bombarded by slow moving thermal neutrons, releasing energy, gamma radiation and more neutrons. It can therefore sustain a nuclear chain reaction, leading to applications in nuclear weapons and nuclear reactors. Plutonium is the heaviest naturally-occurring or primordial element; the most stable isotope of plutonium is plutonium-244, with a half-life of about 80 million years, long enough to be found in trace quantities in nature.[3] Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88 years and emits alpha particles. It is a heat source in radioisotope thermoelectric generators, which are used to power some spacecraft. Plutonium-240 has a high rate of spontaneous fission, raising the background neutron rate of any sample it is contained in. The presence of plutonium-240 effectively limits a sample's weapon and power potential and determines its grade: weapons (< 7%), fuel (7–19%) and reactor grade (> 19%).
Element 94 was first synthesized in 1940 by a team led by Glenn T. Seaborg and Edwin McMillan at the University of California, Berkeley laboratory by bombarding uranium-238 with deuterons. McMillan named the new element after Pluto, and Seaborg suggested the symbol Pu as a joke. Trace amounts of plutonium were subsequently discovered in nature. Discovery of plutonium became a classified part of the Manhattan Project to develop an atomic bomb during World War II. The first nuclear test, "Trinity" (July 1945), and the second atomic bomb used to destroy a city (Nagasaki, Japan, in August 1945), "Fat Man", both had cores of plutonium-239. Human radiation experiments studying plutonium were conducted without informed consent, and a number of criticality accidents, some lethal, occurred during and after the war. Disposal of plutonium waste from nuclear power plants and dismantled nuclear weapons built during the Cold War is a major nuclear-proliferation, health, and environmental concern. Other sources of plutonium in the environment are fallout from numerous above-ground nuclear tests (now banned) and several nuclear accidents.
-
Any way, the Greenback Tailor are running at Kirra Point. Gunna go catch a few of them.
(http://www.fishingmonthly.com.au/app/webroot/img/uploads/4f5ff845fd7558850bb31dd6c6b6d7e7_Atkinson609_2.jpg)
-
how do i reach plutonium?
-
how do i reach plutonium?
your on your way :rock
-
your on your way :rock
erg i give up ill never get it
-
how do i reach plutonium?
It is the number of post you have done on AH boards. Right now i am at gold, you are zinc and there is one guy who is at radioactive (highest on AH boards). to get plutonium, i think you need 5000 post. So don't be annoying at post stupid thing just to get up there.
-
It is the number of post you have done on AH boards. Right now i am at gold, you are zinc and there is one guy who is at radioactive (highest on AH boards). to get plutonium, i think you need 5000 post. So don't be annoying at post stupid thing just to get up there.
You realize how many random threads and posts we're going to have now? 4980 :O Probably all in the next few days :noid
-
You realize how many random threads and posts we're going to have now? 4980 :O Probably all in the next few days :noid
:rofl
-
You realize how many random threads and posts we're going to have now? 4980 :O Probably all in the next few days :noid
hay i don't do that kind of stuff.
-
Seriously... HOW is this thread still alive? :rofl
-
Seriously... HOW is this thread still alive? :rofl
the B-29 is the coolest plane in WW2 that is how :old:
-
the B-29 is the coolest plane in WW2 that is how :old:
No...
-
:)
-
:rofl
-
why is it saying rubber ducky?
-
Thank you Skuzzy...yet again, you make my day!
-
why cant i fly a B-2 9 offline and how many perk points do they cost?the B-2 9 is my favorite plane ever to be built and i want to see it fly in this game.so get a video or let it go offline plz plz plz plz plz plz! :pray :pray :pray and why is it saying b29 not B-2 9
-
.squelch cobradudes brother
-
:lol rubber ducky
Forum filters FTW!
:rofl
-
The rubber yellow tail bomb group was by far the best unit in WWII :aok
-
.squelch cobradudes brother
:aok
-
why cant i fly a B-2 9 offline and how many perk points do they cost?the B-2 9 is my favorite plane ever to be built and i want to see it fly in this game.so get a video or let it go offline plz plz plz plz plz plz! :pray :pray :pray and why is it saying rubber ducky not B-2 9
You can't fly a B29 offline because we don't have a B29. If and when we get a B29, then you may fly one offline and on.
But all is not lost. I believe Microsoft Flight Sim has a B29.
-
.squelch cobradudes brother
how and who?
-
:rofl I was like "WTF is the rubber ducky all about". :rofl
-
rubber ducky baby!!!!!
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl forum filter is just awesome :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
We need the Bee-29 NOOK pointy clicky animation, STAT !!!
(Screw you forum filter) :x
-
.squelch cobradudes brother
are you on crack?
-
are you on crack?
Practice this phrase, over and over....
"Would you like fries with that?"
It may be important in the future.
-
He turned it off. :cry
-
After the first & only beta test, it was removed for gameplay reasons. Sorry I ruined it for everyone. :(
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5053/b29c.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/b29c.jpg/)
-
(http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s162/spikesx/ah2b293.png)
ha proof that the B-29 is in Ace's High!!! :D
-
:)
-
There have been reported sightings. :noid
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,281551.msg3639492.html#msg3639492
-
After the first & only beta test, it was removed for gameplay reasons. Sorry I ruined it for everyone. :(
Lmao Ranger that freakin hilarious, the text goes with it perfectly! :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
You can only fly it online.
And boy is she ever a beaut to fly!
-
I want da b29 an an american counterpart to the Lanc as a bomber with huge bomb load
-
:rofl
-
I want da b29 an an american counterpart to the Lanc as a bomber with huge bomb load
The B-29 was not the USAAF counter-part of to the Lancaster.
ack-ack
-
it was removed for gameplay reasons.
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5053/b29c.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/b29c.jpg/)
the plane or the bomb?who do I talk to about the getting the B-29 offline I want it! :pray
-
the plane or the bomb?who do I talk to about the getting the B-29 offline I want it! :pray
so do I, if there can be a lanc there can be a b 29
-
After the first & only beta test, it was removed for gameplay reasons. Sorry I ruined it for everyone. :(
(http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/5053/b29c.jpg) (http://img195.imageshack.us/i/b29c.jpg/)
LOL, range that is great. But really, why most people think nuke when it comes to B-29. they only used two and used far more tonnage of incendiaries. I do not think anyone who wants the B-29 even mention having a nuke with it.
-
The B-29 was not the USAAF counter-part of to the Lancaster.
ack-ack
in game, the lanc is the only plane with that bombload. the next heavies bombload is 8k. the b29 should also have the max allowable load of 14k
-
LOL, range that is great. But really, why most people think nuke when it comes to B-29. they only used two and used far more tonnage of incendiaries. I do not think anyone who wants the B-29 even mention having a nuke with it.
I wanta nuke only if it is heavily perked
-
I wanta nuke only if it is heavily perked
NO NUKES. It is not right to have it just like not having kamikazes on AH.
-
NO NUKES. It is not right to have it just like not having kamikazes on AH.
arent ace pilots the same thing as kamikazis
-
arent ace pilots the same thing as kamikazis
No a ace pilot is a ace pilot, a kamikaze carried ords into a boat that would blow on impact, which you can't do in AH, which I thank HTC for.
-
What do you people want more some big bomb like a nuke or something for a Lancaster lets say,or a B29?
-
B-29
-
in game, the lanc is the only plane with that bombload. the next heavies bombload is 8k. the b29 should also have the max allowable load of 14k
Frogs should have wings so they don't bump their bellybutton when they hop........
-
Frogs should have wings so they don't bump their bellybutton when they hop........
:aok
-
You guys don't realize that 'cooldued' is a shade troll account? This is even obvious to me. Everything about his posts and even his name screams phony. I mean it's funny, but after a while it's not worth giving him any attention.
-
Thought the Superfortress's bombload was 20K?
-
You guys don't realize that 'cooldued' is a shade troll account? This is even obvious to me. Everything about his posts and even his name screams phony. I mean it's funny, but after a while it's not worth giving him any attention.
Was suspicious, this thread confirms it.
-
You guys don't realize that 'cooldued' is a shade troll account? This is even obvious to me. Everything about his posts and even his name screams phony. I mean it's funny, but after a while it's not worth giving him any attention.
I'm a what? what is that anyways? :huh
-
I'm a what? what is that anyways? :huh
You messed up! All the words are spelled correctly, you used some capitals in the right place, and I'm actually able to read it.
-
You messed up! All the words are spelled correctly, you used some capitals in the right place, and I'm actually able to read it.
Thank you Jayhawk, :aok but you didn't answer my question.
-
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_77gGKNcX05Q/SZUSp79HBEI/AAAAAAAAAp0/RBfBltKdId8/S333/feed_trolls.gif)
-
cooldued =cobradude
-
Thought the Superfortress's bombload was 20K?
it is, but the max in game allowable bomb load of 14k
-
They could have B52s in this game and I'd still think the B17 is the only bomber worth flying.
-
it is, but the max in game allowable bomb load of 14k
I don't believe there is a law or rule about max allowable bomb load, 14K is just the largest one we currently have.
They could have B52s in this game and I'd still think the B17 is the only bomber worth flying.
haha, you said it!
Some exceptions may apply, hehe
-
ok then perk it and give me the 20k bomb load
-
arent ace pilots the same thing as kamikazis
ace pilots fly spits not zeros
-
B-29
NO
-
ace pilots fly spits not zeros
and hurri.
-
Was there any other kind of air to air rockets like on a 110,109 and 190. That weren't German or maybe just a diffrent kind of air to air rocket.
-
NO
YES
-
Was there any other kind of air to air rockets like on a 110,109 and 190. That weren't German or maybe just a diffrent kind of air to air rocket.
AIR-2 Genie. The W25 would be a great way to handle NOE raids, too.
They actually fired a live round once.
-
it is, but the max in game allowable bomb load of 14k
If/when the B-29A arrives as a highly perked bomber it should have a maximum payload of 20,000lbs, just as it did in reality.
-
Deal is for some reason we get a ww1 arena but no new ww2 planes what does it matter if we have a b29? so what if you cant get up to it, thats what it was built for. It fought in ww2 so why cant it be added. Some crazy buff guy still gotta up from way back to get to that alt.
Put it in no real good reason not to.....and I dont even drive bombers ;)
But no to the big bomb no need for that.
-
If/when the B-29A arrives as a highly perked bomber it should have a maximum payload of 20,000lbs, just as it did in reality.
The day we get the B29 is the day when hell freezes over.
-
The day we get the B29 is the day when hell freezes over.
not if htc,s customers revolt until they put it on
-
not if htc,s customers revolt until they put it on
What do you mean by revolt?
-
I agree with Vudu15...it was a real plane that was used way, way more than the AR234 which can be just as inaccessible to normal fighters as a B29. If we had a vote, which I know we don't, I'd vote that no B29 = no AR234, just remove it and perk lancs or something.
Obviously no nukes...it's stupid to suggest there should or would be any.
The B29 is just a bomber. It's pretty much the same level of superiority to other bombers as the 262 is to other fighters, maybe even a little less than that, so why all the crying every time it's suggested? It's been suggested so many times that people are sick of hearing about it...HTC shouldn't that tell you something? Like maybe a lot of customers want it?
-
Come on guys we all know the B29 won't come. If it does won't come for awhile. The topic is here if it ever will or why we would bring it to the game anyway.
-
just put it in the game so people stop starting more post about it! :aok
-
it is, but the max in game allowable bomb load of 14k
According to whom, exactly?
-
:)
RUBBER DUCKY!!! tytytyty!!! :rofl
(http://www.internetweekly.org/images/ridge_rubber_ducky_bonus.jpg)
but seriously, this thing about the B29 being an "offline" plane is a BS thing. they don't have the B29 they probably never will...
No a ace pilot is a ace pilot, a kamikaze carried ords into a boat that would blow on impact, which you can't do in AH, which I thank HTC for.
sorry to say this but many pilots suicide into CVs anyways just so they can be accurate with B26s and P38s and all those wonderful planes so the CV will get max damage and go down. They drop bombs and rockets then use cannon until they eat wood...
-
Those aren't pilots, they're guidance systems for cruise missiles.
-
According to whom, exactly?
HTC I believe.
Lets face it, customers want tthe b29, put in the b29
-
HTC I believe.
Lets face it, customers want tthe b29, put in the b29
Lots of people want the B-29 for the wrong reasons. I wouldn't mind seeing massive missions to hit the strat, escorts and all.
But I would hate to see a whole countries shoreline shut down, preventing 3-4 good fights.
IMO, having the B-29 for positive reasons listed above is not worth the probable, consistent, frustration that it would bring.
-
the lancaster holds 14k, and that cannot take out an entire base. the b29 holds 20k, only 6 kmore than the lanc. if 14k of bombs cannot take out an entire base, theres no way 20k is going to take out several bases
-
HTC I believe.
Lets face it, customers want tthe b29, put in the b29
No just because the customers want it does not mean that it should necessarily be here people here wish for things that the want, often regardless of how it would impact the community and game as a whole. People are often selfish in their wants or don't really actually know what they want.
"Because they want it" is actually a horrible reason to make a game change.
-
(edit: not worth it)
-
but the distance between the planes means only the center planes bombs hit the target
-
Evidently you have absolutely no idea how much more accurate AH bombers are than
their WW2 counterparts. Strategic bombers were generally not used against tactical targets,
Operation Cobra being the exception rather than the rule.
No LGBs or GPS guidance in the 1940s.
-
Not another "I want a B-29 thread".
IN
-
but the distance between the planes means only the center planes bombs hit the target
Uh no. Almost every player who frequently fly's a bomber knows that the drones bombs almost ALWAYS hit the target. Even if the bombs do not directly impact, the splash damage still causes the same effect.
-
No just because the customers want it does not mean that it should necessarily be here people here wish for things that the want, often regardless of how it would impact the community and game as a whole. People are often selfish in their wants or don't really actually know what they want.
"Because they want it" is actually a horrible reason to make a game change.
Quoted for truth.
-
(edit: not worth it)
Not another "I want a B-29 thread".
haha, agreed. Considering this thread was started by a shade trolling around, no reason to have this discussion for the 1000th time.
-
Frogs should have wings so they don't bump their bellybutton when they hop........
LOL!
ack-ack
-
HTC I believe.
Lets face it, customers want tthe b29, put in the b29
You are incorrect, the customers an a whole have not said they want the B-29. It's only been a few retarded squeakers such as yourself that have repeatedly asked for the B-29.
ack-ack
-
haha, agreed. Considering this thread was started by a shade trolling around, no reason to have this discussion for the 1000th time.
Don't think he is a shade, no one would purposely make themselves look this retarded and become the butt of the community's jokes.
ack-ack
-
Don't think he is a shade, no one would purposely make themselves look this retarded and become the butt of the community's jokes.
ack-ack
Well here's my evidence for believing it.
1.)In his first post he wanted to know how to start a new thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286866.msg3636480.html#msg3636480 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286866.msg3636480.html#msg3636480)
yet he already understands how to insert pictures into threads, and apparently found or had the MFS B-29 picture he posted above.
2.)Started this B-29 thread:
Started a helicopter thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286945.msg3637442.html#msg3637442 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286945.msg3637442.html#msg3637442)
and a thread about C-47 troops: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287059.msg3639089.html#msg3639089 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287059.msg3639089.html#msg3639089)
These are typical newbie threads, but to see all three in a such a short stretch, eh, just seems odd.
3.)And for someone who claims not to be able to fly online (I thought I read that), he seems to understand the eny system or general abilities of planes,
ok if i could play online i wold bet i could beat u in a I-16 and you in eny plane but the me163 or me262
more than the average newbie.
4.) Finally, for someone who can't spell dude correctly, he's got a couple posts where I think he slips and uses mostly correct grammar and spelling.
I hope I'm right, I think we're at our quota for these squeakers blowing up the BBS.
-
And if he is a shade, he wins because I just took the time to compile all that. :lol
-
Jayhawk if you are talking about the MFS screenshot with the AH map of the TA on there, I made that one. :rofl
-
Jayhawk if you are talking about the MFS screenshot with the AH map of the TA on there, I made that one. :rofl
and it was linked from your photobucket account. You're my primary suspect. :noid
:neener:
-
Well here's my evidence for believing it.
1.)In his first post he wanted to know how to start a new thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286866.msg3636480.html#msg3636480 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286866.msg3636480.html#msg3636480)
yet he already understands how to insert pictures into threads, and apparently found or had the MFS B-29 picture he posted above.
Ok u got me...NOT!!!I did this before but this is a different place so how would I know how to start a post?
2.)Started this B-29 thread:
Started a helicopter thread: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286945.msg3637442.html#msg3637442 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,286945.msg3637442.html#msg3637442)
and a thread about C-47 troops: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287059.msg3639089.html#msg3639089 (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,287059.msg3639089.html#msg3639089)
These are typical newbie threads, but to see all three in a such a short stretch, eh, just seems odd.
Well sorry.
3.)And for someone who claims not to be able to fly online (I thought I read that), he seems to understand the eny system or general abilities of planes, more than the average newbie.
Thank you :) I practice a lot
4.) Finally, for someone who can't spell dude correctly, he's got a couple posts where I think he slips and uses mostly correct grammar and spelling.
Once again thank you
I hope I'm right, I think we're at our quota for these squeakers blowing up the BBS.
Well to bad for you.your not sorry.
-
Thank you :) I practice a lot
How can you possibly practice, ENY has no effect offline?
-
How can you possibly practice, ENY has no effect offline?
ENY?
-
ENY?
ok if i could play online i wold bet i could beat u in a I-16 and you in eny plane but the me163 or me262
More evidence for me.
-
More evidence for me.
lol :lol Im not a troll.
-
ENY has no effect offline?
ENY has no effect offline?what do you mean?
-
ENY has no effect offline?what do you mean?
I thought you knew what ENY was since you spoke about it earlier. So do you know what ENY is?
-
I thought you knew what ENY was since I spoke about it earlier. So do you know what ENY is?
NO?!
-
NO?!
ok if i could play online i wold bet i could beat u in a I-16 and you in eny plane but the me163 or me262
-
I still don't get what you mean by "eny has no effect offline"
-
I still don't get what you mean by "eny has no effect offline"
Before I explain, what did you originally mean in this post by "eny"
ok if i could play online i wold bet i could beat u in a I-16 and you in eny plane but the me163 or me262
-
Before I explain, what did you originally mean in this post by "eny"
I think i spelled it wrong any I think thats wright. I mean "what ever plane".
-
ENY is what balances out the teams by not allowing the other side to fly late war planes. Example: bish have 80 people on and rooks have 60, so bish would have an ENY of 10 which would not allow them to fly most late war planes.
-
ENY is what balances out the teams by not allowing the other side to fly late war planes. Example: bish have 80 people on and rooks have 60, so bish would have an ENY of 10 which would not allow them to fly most late war planes.
Well sorry for the mix up.jayhawk get off my back im not a troll ok just go away!!!
-
why cant i fly a B-2 9 offline and how many perk points do they cost?the B-2 9 is my favorite plane ever to be built and i want to see it fly in this game.so get a video or let it go offline plz plz plz plz plz plz! :pray :pray :pray and why is it saying b29 not B-2 9
You need some thicker fishing line for how many you have hooked in these threads.
-
why cant i fly a B-2 9 offline and how many perk points do they cost?the B-2 9 is my favorite plane ever to be built and i want to see it fly in this game.so get a video or let it go offline plz plz plz plz plz plz! :pray :pray :pray and why is it saying b29 not B-2 9
A B2 would actually be even better as a late bomber :)
(http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/american_idol_armchair_critic_trollcat1.jpg)
-
A B2 would actually be even better as a late bomber :)
(http://trollcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/american_idol_armchair_critic_trollcat1.jpg)
B-2 stealth bomber!when did WW-3 get in aceshigh?
-
B-2 stealth bomber!when did WW-3 get in aceshigh?
when was there a WWIII? :lol and don't you guys think this is getting better than fights with kingcobradude? :x
-
when was there a WWIII? :lol and don't you guys think this is getting better than fights with kingcobradude? :x
ww3 just not yet
-
ww3 just not yet
but...........the B-2.......its already real........ and flown..........and it has been used against the enemy..........
-
All I can really say is WOW. This is the caliber of young kids that will be in charge of the world at some point. That is scary, I am now glad that I smoke and drink.
-
but...........the B-2.......its already real........ and flown..........and it has been used against the enemy..........
in ww2?
-
All I can really say is WOW. This is the caliber of young kids that will be in charge of the world at some point. That is scary, I am now glad that I smoke and drink.
I'm buying extra.
-
why is this still alive? shoot it its only growing stronger with time!
-
in ww2?
Honestly! You are seriously asking that?
NO! STEALTH BOMBERS CAME IN THE MODERN AGES.
-
Honestly! You are seriously asking that?
yes!
-
I think Skuzzy needs to accidentally hit the delete key on this one.
-
I think Skuzzy needs to accidentally hit the delete key on this one.
Agreed. :D
-
I think Skuzzy needs to accidentally hit the delete key on this one.
nnnooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
-
nnnooooooooooooooooooo!!!!
Cooldued, go spend 48 hours on Wikipedia learning about military aviation, then come back when you know the difference of a PAK-FA and a P-51.
There weren't MBTs, stealth fighters, stealth bombers, turbofan powered fighter jets, or any of those things in WWII.
And WWIII hasn't happened yet, and if it did/does, we'd probably be all dead.
-
First of all this post is 31pages man about the past 3 are a hole bunch of stuff probably not on topic. Come on. Cooldued you got to copper member in just 3 days your replies are mostly 1 word and questions not remotely about the B29.
-
WWIII hasn't happened yet, and if it did/does, we'd probably be all dead.
wow that makes me all worm inside.First of all this post is 31pages man about the past 3 are a hole bunch of stuff probably not on topic. Come on. Cooldued you got to copper member in just 3 days your replies are mostly 1 word and questions not remotely about the B29.
sorry
-
No worries just I don't wanna see no one picked on. It's a B29 post not some drama movie. I don't wanna see the next series if you get me.
Now I'm sure you all know 81st Epic mission imagine that mission just with B29s theres probably a good reason why it's not in the game. Then again that would make the game so much better. :)
-
No worries just I don't wanna see no one picked on. It's a B29 post not some drama movie. I don't wanna see the next series if you get me.
Now I'm sure you all know 81st Epic mission imagine that mission just with B29s theres probably a good reason why it's not in the game. Then again that would make the game so much better. :)
if I was the enemy I'd crap my pants :lol
-
:)
RUBBER DUCKY!!!! :rofl <---All i gotta say to this thread... Bring the rubber ducks!!!
-
RUBBER DUCKY!!!! :rofl <---All i gotta say to this thread... Bring the rubber ducks!!!
I have to agree. This thread is long over do and meaningless.
-
We still haven't discussed the distruction the B29 would bring in 81st Epic Mission by Swoops.
-
Lets make this into an all rubber ducky thread... :lol :aok starting...NOW!
-
(http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/rubber_ducky.jpg)
-
(http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/rubber_ducky.jpg)
NO!!!
-
Lets make this into an all rubber ducky thread... :lol :aok starting...NOW!
We need to rename it then...
-
We need to rename it then...
no dont
-
how about givin me a b29 with some nukes, then discussing rubber ducks
-
how about givin me a b29 with some nukes, then discussing rubber ducks
or just the b-29 part :D
-
or just the b-29 part :D
that works too
-
I agree we need another bomber perk, and there are plenty of planes that can shoot a B29 down. The top speed is only around 350 from what my research has shown. Quit screwing around and give us another bomber. Getting tired of the bs.
-
What BS is that? Lack of perked bombers or all the BBS threads?
-
I agree we need another bomber perk, and there are plenty of planes that can shoot a B29 down. The top speed is only around 350 from what my research has shown. Quit screwing around and give us another bomber. Getting tired of the bs.
bs?do you mean like the B-24,25,and 17 or what?
-
OK, you squeaker. You really need to stop this posting of the B-29. We all have long argue about it being perk, station at certain fields, question on what AC can take it down, need to add another AC that will balance the MA with the B-29 and so. There is absolutely nothing you guys can do to change it but argue the same dam thing as it has been in the first four pages of this thread.
-
(http://www.apostropher.com/blog/img/rubber_ducky.jpg)
must be a Kriegsmarine U-duck :lol
-
SKUZZINATOR! I demand more rubber duckies to stop this nonsense! Please allow my wish to be granted!!!! :x
-
OK, you squeaker. You really need to stop this posting of the B-29. We all have long argue about it being perk, station at certain fields, question on what AC can take it down, need to add another AC that will balance the MA with the B-29 and so. There is absolutely nothing you guys can do to change it but argue the same dam thing as it has been in the first four pages of this thread.
+1
I sometimes feels the urge to post my opionion but must remind myself that everything that can be said, has been said. Time will tell, no more positive impact these threads can add from people spouting off their opionion on this subject for the 1000th time.
-
Ahhh, how many threads got skuzzicombined!? Is this like gathering all your papers together before you send them through the shredder? :aok
-
Wow, never seen that happen before. :lol
-
:rofl Wow, nice job Skuzzy...1 massive B-29 stinkpile. :lol
I'll put odds on not a single B-29 nub will read back more than 5 pages...especially the squeakers.
Can you imagine the number of whines there would be to have a nook available in the hangar? A few weeks after having the B-29 put into the game, some 2 week "my mom won't pay for my account until summer" squeaker will come in here and post a wish for a nuke...sounds kinda like someone spooking the forums now.
Once the plane set is filled out more completely...then see if HTC wants to tackle it.
-
double post...forums acting weird...
-
I have to agree with jayhawk and Gyreene,
Enough is enough.
-
YES! now make it a rubber ducky thread through and through!!!! :x
(http://www.treehugger.com/20081224-rubber-ducks.jpg)
(http://www.designyourgigis.com/wp-content/uploads/Rubber%20Ducks_3.jpg)
(http://roflrazzi.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/celebrity-pictures-hugh-jackman-rubber-duck.jpg)
-
Jesus christ, we really are still posting here?
-
Jesus christ, we really are still posting here?
skuzzy shoved 300 B29 threads into one giant one. The one we were posting in was about only 125 pages long and shoulda died but i resurrected it about 2 or 3 times with just rubber duckies... aka if we get the B29 we get duckies too :aok also aka B29 threads are as dumb as a guy constantly ranting about the invasion of yellow rubber duckies in our skies!
-
skuzzy shoved 300 B29 threads into one giant one. The one we were posting in was about only 125 pages long and shoulda died but i resurrected it about 2 or 3 times with just rubber duckies... aka if we get the B29 we get duckies too :aok also aka B29 threads are as dumb as a guy constantly ranting about the invasion of yellow rubber duckies in our skies!
The sooner we get the B29 the sooner we stop posting for it.So if you want us to stop asking for it tell us that it will be in the next version.If its not we will post it again and again until its in!for good!PS yes this is almost like a threat :D
-
The sooner we get the B29 the sooner we stop posting for it.So if you want us to stop asking for it tell us that it will be in the next version.If its not we will post it again and again until its in!for good!PS yes this is almost like a threat :D
im with cooldued
-
im with cooldued
shut up u make it look bad
-
What I want the b29 so I can flatten bases with an american bomber effectively
-
What I want the b29 so I can flatten bases with an american bomber effectively
no nook
-
nuke or no nuke, I want to carry 20k of own in an american bomber
-
nuke or no nuke, I want to carry 20k of own in an american bomber
Too bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPCRIFLjfPo
-
Too bad.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OPCRIFLjfPo
slikes, id really like for ypou to get off my case
-
(http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj131/bayoubeach/deadhorse.jpg)
:rolleyes:
:bolt:
-
Would I be considered a Martyr if I posted something completely inappropriate to get this entire thread locked? :)
-
slikes, id really like for ypou to get off my case
kingcobradud, id really like for ypou to stop beating on a dead horse.
-
See Rule #4
-
Reply #2225
someones been doing the spring-cleaning :rofl
-
Would I be considered a Martyr if I posted something completely inappropriate to get this entire thread locked? :)
PLEASE DO! ill put the jesus facepalm in! you put the naked chicks!!!
-
I guess this thread is the noob filter, instead of having multiple locked b29 threads just have 1 150+ page thread... if you post here your a noob... oh wait....
-
I guess this thread is the noob filter, instead of having multiple locked b29 threads just have 1 150+ page thread... if you post here your a noob... oh wait....
i've been against the noobs wanting the B-29 :rofl
-
slikes why ypou gotta be suck a meanie?
cuz i can b teck, gota problem?
:)
-
all I have to say is
NOOK!!!
(http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr232/hunterneary/smileys/tehbignookie.gif)
-
shut up u make it look bad
Speak for yourself. You were the one who thought stealth bombers existed in WWII, right? At least kingcobradude knows WWIII hasn't happened yet.
-
Wait! Wait! dont lock it yet I sense a cat fight coming........ :lol
-
Speak for yourself. You were the one who thought stealth bombers existed in WWII, right? At least kingcobradude knows WWIII hasn't happened yet.
not really.I mean like a super jet bomber.the USA didn't have one!im amazed we made the B-52. back to the B-29 now.
-
not really.I mean like a super jet bomber.the USA didn't have one!im amazed we made the B-52. back to the B-29 now.
The B-52 jet bomber was completed in 1952, 7 years after WWII. Plus, it didn't enter service 'till 1955. Sorry to rain on your parade.
-
Was my post combined with another one by raptor from 2005 or is it just me?
-
The B-52 jet bomber was completed in 1952, 7 years after WWII. Plus, it didn't enter service 'till 1955. Sorry to rain on your parade.
only 9 wow I was thinking like 20 years! :x
-
Was my post combined with another one by raptor from 2005 or is it just me?
No no, this thread just became REALLY REALLY popular over the last few days. Once a thread gets this big it starts sucking in random posts from various threads throughout the BBS, known bug, I think it's called the Black Hole Bug.
-
:lol
-
Was my post combined with another one by raptor from 2005 or is it just me?
just you.give me the B-29!!!
-
No offense, but I think cooldued needs to spend 48 hours at Wikipedia in the aerospace section before saying another word here.
-
No seriously.
-
I traced the beginning of my B29 post to page 115.
-
I traced the beginning of my B29 post to page 115.
You should start a new thread in protest of this line of action.
-
No offense, but I think cooldued needs to spend 48 hours at Wikipedia in the aerospace section before saying another word here.
well to badYou should start a new thread in protest of this line of action.
plz don't
-
I have nothing else to say on this post besides ---> :rolleyes:
-
I have nothing else to say on this post besides ---> :rolleyes:
ok? :bolt:
-
i hope we never get a B29. there. i said it. :neener:
-
i hope we never get a B29. there. i said it. :neener:
gasp never say that
-
not really.I mean like a super jet bomber.the USA didn't have one!im amazed we made the B-52. back to the B-29 now.
ok ok ok...HUH? :huh a super jet bomber! :rofl nobody had a super jet bomber in WWII. the Ar234 was used as a scout by the axis and the 262 in the end became a freaking bomber! :lol Hitler had his priorities in a big fat jumble... and you're amazed we made the B52? we made jets because of captured German WWII tech. and from the B52 on the Russians were trying to copy OUR designs... cue the O-Club Russian F22 thread now please...
gasp never say that
i hope we all get B29s but you :cheers:
-
ok ok ok...HUH? :huh a super jet bomber! :rofl nobody had a super jet bomber in WWII. the Ar234 was used as a scout by the axis and the 262 in the end became a freaking bomber! :lol Hitler had his priorities in a big fat jumble... and you're amazed we made the B52? we made jets because of captured German WWII tech. and from the B52 on the Russians were trying to copy OUR designs... cue the O-Club Russian F22 thread now please...i hope we all get B29s but you :cheers:
While we did learn a lot from German equipment that was captured and brought some of the German scientists over to aid in our R&D, but the U.S. had a jet fighter of it's own before the end of the war.
-
See Rule #4
-
and from the B52 on the Russians were trying to copy OUR designs...
They did? :confused:
Are you talking about the Tu-95? But that has nothing to do with the B-52. :headscratch:
-
i hope we never get a B29. there. i said it. :neener:
I hope you're right.
-
The B-29 would be a GREAT addition.
-
The B-29 would be a GREAT addition.
im with you dude
-
ok ok ok...HUH? :huh a super jet bomber! :rofl nobody had a super jet bomber in WWII. the Ar234 was used as a scout by the axis and the 262 in the end became a freaking bomber! :lol Hitler had his priorities in a big fat jumble... and you're amazed we made the B52? we made jets because of captured German WWII tech. and from the B52 on the Russians were trying to copy OUR designs... cue the O-Club Russian F22 thread now please...i hope we all get B29s but you :cheers:
Even the B-29 was superior to what the Russians had in WWII. They spent a lot of time copying one that was forced to land in Russia after it had problems during a bombing run over Japan.
-
im with you dude
You need to do something besides being a non-paying offline 2 week squeaker forum troll...do your parents monitor your online activity? If I were your parents you wouldn't be allowed to install anything without my direct supervision and only after I inspected every aspect of it...if it even smelled like it cost money, you wouldn't get it until you could earn it.
-
im with you dude
:rofl
(little does the squeaker troll know, but Hap is actually a real-life adult player and like the rest of us who arent 10, strongly opposes the B-29)
do we really need a bomber that can carry more ords than lancs and defend itself better than ole' reliable (B-17)?
I have nothing else to say on this post besides ---> :rolleyes:
ok? :bolt:
^^you know, i think that they should get married :lol :rolleyes:
-
what is wrong about asking fora b29? and what reason it that to lock this thread?
-
You need to do something besides being a non-paying offline 2 week squeaker forum troll...do your parents monitor your online activity? If I were your parents you wouldn't be allowed to install anything without my direct supervision and only after I inspected every aspect of it...if it even smelled like it cost money, you wouldn't get it until you could earn it.
+1
thats what my parents did when i first signed up to the original Xbox live :aok
-
You need to do something besides being a non-paying offline 2 week squeaker forum troll...do your parents monitor your online activity? If I were your parents you wouldn't be allowed to install anything without my direct supervision and only after I inspected every aspect of it...if it even smelled like it cost money, you wouldn't get it until you could earn it.
THX you for saying something about that. Dam squeaker really starting to make a mockery out for this BBS.
-
^^you know, i think that they should get married :lol :rolleyes:
hahaha thats funny but 1 im not gay no offense,2 dont date long dissents,3 I am to young to get married
-
3 I am to young to get married
That....we can see... :old:
-
what is wrong about asking fora b29? and what reason it that to lock this thread?
kid, it will NEVER happen, its just way too Uber for this game to be fair.
if you dont believe me, here:
max ordinance load: 20,000 lbs. vs. Lancaster III max ordinance load (in game): 14,000 lbs.
defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs plus 1 20mm cannon in remote-controlled turrets vs. B-17 defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs with ture American warriors at the controls
max speed: 358 mph vs. B-26 max speed: 283 mph
let me put this in words im sure even you can understand:
WE DONT NEED DA BIG UUUBER PLANE
-
kid, it will NEVER happen, its just way too Uber for this game to be fair.
if you dont believe me, here:
max ordinance load: 20,000 lbs. vs. Lancaster III max ordinance load (in game): 14,000 lbs.
defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs plus 1 20mm cannon in remote-controlled turrets vs. B-17 defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs with ture American warriors at the controls
max speed: 358 mph vs. B-26 max speed: 283 mph
let me put this in words im sure even you can understand:
WE DONT NEED DA BIG UUUBER PLANE
I don't care if thar is no bomb lode i just want to fly this bad oscar
-
dont date long dissents
:huh What did he say? Didn't know there were long dissents and short dissents...maybe a long or short disagreement? But who said anything about dating disagreements?
I don't care if thar is no bomb lode i just want to fly this bad oscar
Gotta admit, you and kingcobradude can totally butcher the english language like experts...and it's your native language.
-
:rofl
(little does the squeaker troll know, but Hap is actually a real-life adult player and like the rest of us who arent 10, strongly opposes the B-29)
do we really need a bomber that can carry more ords than lancs and defend itself better than ole' reliable (B-17)?
^^you know, i think that they should get married :lol :rolleyes:
Wow, more reliable or better defended then the B-17, watch you mouth! I'm listening... :neener:
now that is child abuse. are you raciest to kid's?
How is that racist?
-
Wow, more reliable or better defended then the B-17, watch you mouth! I'm listening... :neener:
How is that racist?
since its almost 100 mph faster and has the added advantage of a 20mm cannon, it can *ever* so slighty defend itself better than the 17.
but IMO there is no better aircraft nor will there ever be a better aircraft (in this game) than ole' reliable, so not even the B-29 would replace it for me :)
-
since its almost 100 mph faster and has the added advantage of a 20mm cannon, it can *ever* so slighty defend itself better than the 17.
but IMO there is no better aircraft nor will there ever be a better aircraft (in this game) than ole' reliable, so not even the B-29 would replace it for me :)
Eh, you speak my language. :devil
-
kid, it will NEVER happen, its just way too Uber for this game to be fair.
if you dont believe me, here:
max ordinance load: 20,000 lbs. vs. Lancaster III max ordinance load (in game): 14,000 lbs.
defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs plus 1 20mm cannon in remote-controlled turrets vs. B-17 defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs with ture American warriors at the controls
max speed: 358 mph vs. B-26 max speed: 283 mph
let me put this in words im sure even you can understand:
WE DONT NEED DA BIG UUUBER PLANE
ok not all b29s had guns
and I know english well, and am learning Irish and ASL
-
and I know english well, and am learning Irish and ASL
:rofl
-
ok not all b29s had guns
and I know english well, and am learning Irish and ASL
im proud of you, ive pretty much mastered English because i LIVE HERE
and on top of that, i know French, Russian, and some German :aok
keep working on english, maybe you can get cooldude to be your study buddy :)
-
:rofl
thats great, ive pretty much mastered English because i live here
and on top of that, i know French, Russian, and some German :aok
keep working on english, maybe you can get cooldude to be your study buddy :)
The only response is STFU!!!
-
ok not all b29s had guns
not all B-29s had engine :noid
-
and on top of that, i know French, Russian, and some German :aok
really? :O
That's great
How long did it take you to learn that? Just curious.
-
not all B-29s had engine :noid
OMG N00B
-
OMG N00B
:rofl
-
The n00b a13r7 radar is showing several n00bs in the area
-
Hook
ok not all b29s had guns
and I know english well, and am learning Irish and ASL
Line
not all B-29s had engine :noid
SINKER!!!
OMG N00B
Quick MachFly, reel it in!!! I'll club it for you.
-
See Rule #12
-
Hook
Line
SINKER!!!
Quick MachFly, reel it in!!! I'll club it for you.
:rofl man, these threads just make my day!
-
The n00b a13r7 radar is showing several n00bs in the area
You can start calling people noobs once you can fight someone without flopping out of the sky.
-
Since nobody is going to go back and read all the crap they SHOULD before re-requesting the B-29 I'll break it down for you:
Pros:
- Saw service, lots of it! Major bomber in the PTO
- Bomb load of 20,000 pounds.
- Decent guns, even if only 2-3 turrets plus a tail position they had good range of motion
- Higher alts and higher cruising speeds.
Cons:
- Took miles to roll on takeoff, 2-3 times the length of current AH runways
- Engines very unreliable for a long time. Could not run full throttle, could not climb at full throttle, or the engines threatened to catch fire. Climbed very slowly and accerated slowly. Higher cruising speeds attained over greater time.
- Historically they were too inaccurate when dropping above 30K, so they flew lower
- Gun stations were operated from bubble domes, so it was possible to be looking the wrong way and have blind spots even if the guns could shoot there.
- 20mm in the tail often removed in the field
- When pressurized at altitude, very susceptible to minor damage which could cause blowouts to that pressurization. (read: I think they'd be weaker than current bombers, structurally)
In summary: It'd be nice, but it wasn't "too uber" and it wasn't a godlike bomber. It didn't perform all that great and even "inferior" japanese interceptors shot many down
Okay, now carry on with the requesting. Hopefully I've enlightened a few that didn't bother reading what was already here.
-
not all B-29s had engine :noid
how do you get the plane to go magic?i love magic
-
See Rule #12
-
Actually Krusty more were lost to mechanical failures and anti-aircraft fire than Japanese aircraft...one of the reasons 15k was established in the later missions from the Solomons as operational altitude.
-
(http://www.dasmuppets.com/public/Tec/noid.bmp)
Just sayin.....
:noid
-
They were intended for 35k bombing over Europe, but that fight was well in hand and the bombers there could do the job already. They were then prioritized for the Pacific because of the fantastic range. They could island hop and hit Tokyo without the need for forward bases. Only the super fast jetstreams blowing over that part of the world (specifically, over Japan) were so severe that any bombing accuracy was hopeless.
They were dropped lower so they could hit what they wany, and then later it was realized that hitting targets wasn't as important as firebombing cities.
-
You can start calling people noobs once you can fight someone without flopping out of the sky.
:aok
-
See Rule #12
-
I declare Wildcat1 a n00b
and i declare kingcobradude immature! :aok
and a noob :devil
-
Hook
Line
SINKER!!!
Quick MachFly, reel it in!!! I'll club it for you.
I have a shotgun lock and loaded!
-
See Rule #12
-
I declare Wildcat1 a n00b
I thought you could not be a noob to declare someone that? :headscratch:
-
I thought you could not be a noob to declare someone that? :headscratch:
HAX!
-
If you guys know the B29 isn't coming to the game why are you still replying to this topic,what just to annoy a couple of kids. wow
-
If you guys know the B29 isn't coming to the game why are you still replying to this topic,what just to annoy a couple of kids. wow
heres a better question:
if you guys know the B-29 isnt coming to the game, why do you still MAKE these threads about them?
-
Well I made this post months ago just to see some reasons why it's not here and my Co. I don't even know why it's still here. Look at page 115 look for the largest reply by me on that page,that's where mine started.
-
Cons:
- Took miles to roll on takeoff, 2-3 times the length of current AH runways
- Engines very unreliable for a long time. Could not run full throttle, could not climb at full throttle, or the engines threatened to catch fire. Climbed very slowly and accerated slowly. Higher cruising speeds attained over greater time. Nothing else in AH is modeled with failures. No gun jams or engine failures
- Historically they were too inaccurate when dropping above 30K, so they flew lowerThat was because of the discovery of the jet stream I believe. Otherwise just as accurate as any other American bomber
- Gun stations were operated from bubble domes, so it was possible to be looking the wrong way and have blind spots even if the guns could shoot there.Bonus they have to keep their head on a swivel also.
- 20mm in the tail often removed in the fieldNo field mods in AH... Or are you making a case for them now? If so I want my P-39 running on russian map settings.
- When pressurized at altitude, very susceptible to minor damage which could cause blowouts to that pressurization. (read: I think they'd be weaker than current bombers, structurally)
Sorry K, whats good for everything else will be ok for the B-29.
-
They did? :confused:
Are you talking about the Tu-95? But that has nothing to do with the B-52. :headscratch:
More than you think mach... The russians were copying designs of ours as much as possible. This did not mean that the Russian equivalents were exactly alike the American designs all the time and you just pointed that out. the Bear was the ANSWER to the B52 :aok but they stole our space shuttle, they stole the concord, they stole the B29, they now have a Russian version of the F22. theres other models of american designs that were taken by the russians too i just cant remember them all
-
While we did learn a lot from German equipment that was captured and brought some of the German scientists over to aid in our R&D, but the U.S. had a jet fighter of it's own before the end of the war.
completely blanked when writing that post
-
kid, it will NEVER happen, its just way too Uber for this game to be fair.
if you dont believe me, here:
max ordinance load: 20,000 lbs. vs. Lancaster III max ordinance load (in game): 14,000 lbs.
defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs plus 1 20mm cannon in remote-controlled turrets vs. B-17 defensive armament: 12 .50 cal MGs with ture American warriors at the controls
max speed: 358 mph vs. B-26 max speed: 283 mph
let me put this in words im sure even you can understand:
WE DONT NEED DA BIG UUUBER PLANE
But but but!!! it can be the AHII deathstarrrrr!!!! :cry
-
(http://www.dasmuppets.com/public/Tec/noid.bmp)
Just sayin.....
:noid
notice something else not in game here? :D TIGER II!!!!! anyways now that ive caught up with this stupid/hilarious thread you wont see me in this one for ohh idk, an hour or two :rofl
-
Would I be considered a Martyr if I posted something completely inappropriate to get this entire thread locked? :)
Only if you want to be suspended from the bulletin board for 30 days.
Hope those of you who got suspended over this, find it was worth it.
-
what about NOT adding the B29 ? Enough american bombers. I don't know why all the noobs want it, as they won't even have the perks for it :D
well im going to start saving now :aok
-
what are the things that planes need to be added to game?one was to be used in real squad,i looked it up and the B-29 had a squad,called the 505 Bomb group. :) hears a link to site http://community-2.webtv.net/NYCB29/505BombGroupTinian/ cant get what the other thing was.
-
See Rule #10
-
More "cool"..."it would be cool"..."it's cool"... :rolleyes:
Whatever... :joystick:
-
See Rule #10
-
Batman says +1 to the B-29, but -1,000,000,000 to nukes.
(http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/mm134/waystin2/NecroBumpBatman.jpg)
-
but would need to be perked.
Fixed
keep trying young padawan almost there
-
You come back from your "vacation" to troll a thread from August of last year.
-
Can someone with high-speed find this out? Lol, would be truly interested to know
Did a search just in the wishlist:
1. B29s have been listed as the subject of the wish 49 times
2. B29s have been brought up in the wish list 357 times
-
OK, the necrobump thing wasn't even funny the first time you posted it let alone the last 1,000,000,000 times you posted it. I'm starting to think you just like pictures of guys in tights.
-
why do the B29 threads keep getting bumped from a year ago?
-
OK, the necrobump thing wasn't even funny the first time you posted it let alone the last 1,000,000,000 times you posted it. I'm starting to think you just like pictures of guys in tights.
Most things on this board are not funny. Why be any different? You love me Tec, you know you do... ;)
-
how about we take the ords of a lancaster, increase its speed, give it better defensive guns and skin it like a B-29.
perk it at 70.
Absolutely no nuke whatsoever.
It is a more acceptable B-29 dont you think?
You get a B-29 when I get a MiG 15
-
when i was a noob a couple years ago i called HTC for some problem i was having, anyway was talking to pyro (Doug) and i brought up the 29. He said something to the effect that they would have to redo all airfields, and it would be about as much work as modeling 10 planes. He also said ONE DAY it might happen but no time soon.
Here are the specs from both b29 and b24 i can see it would be a big undertaking, but would kick donut if they did it.
B29 specs from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29_Superfortress#Specifications_.28B-29.29
General characteristics
* Crew: 11 (5 officers, 6 enlisted): (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot),[30][31] bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
* Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
* Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
* Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
* Wing area: 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²)
* Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
* Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg – 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record[18]))
* Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* * Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
* Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
* Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance
* Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
* Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
* Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
* Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km[18]))
* Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
* Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
* Wing loading: 69.12 lb/sqft (337 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament
* Guns:
o 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
o 2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
o B-29B-BW – All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
* Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout
B24 Stats from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24J_Liberator#Specifications_.28B-24J.29
General characteristics
* Crew: 7-10
* Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m)
* Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m)
* Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m)
* Wing area: 1,048 ft² (97.4 m²)
* Empty weight: 36,500 lb (16,590 kg)
* Loaded weight: 55,000 lb (25,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 65,000 lb (29,500 kg)
* Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (900 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0406
* Drag area: 42.54 ft² (3.95 m²)
* Aspect ratio: 11.55
Performance
* Maximum speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
* Stall speed: 95 mph (83 kn, 153 km/h)
* Combat radius: 2,100 mi (1,800 nmi, 3,400 km)
* Ferry range: 3,700 mi (3,200 nmi, 6,000 km)
* Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
* Rate of climb: 1,025 ft/min (5.2 m/s)
* Wing loading: 52.5 lb/ft² (256 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.0873 hp/lb (144 W/kg)
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 12.9
Armament
* Guns: 10 × .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in 4 turrets and two waist positions
* Bombs:
o Short range (˜400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
o Long range (˜800 mi): 5,000 lb (2,300 kg)
o Very long range (˜1,200 mi): 2,700 lb (1,200 kg)
<S> DEEMAN
-
More like we get a B-29 when the F-35 gets modled in game.
-
It's squeaker season!
-
why do the B29 threads keep getting bumped from a year ago?
Apparently someone who was given a "time out" by the powers that be has his BB privileges back.
Seems like maybe that was a bad idea or he didn't get the clue from his "vacation".
and, a big IN from me.
wrongway
-
It's squeaker season!
Already? Dangit!
-
Apparently someone who was given a "time out" by the powers that be has his BB privileges back.
Seems like maybe that was a bad idea or he didn't get the clue from his "vacation".
and, a big IN from me.
wrongway
makes sense :aok
-
no way!!!
1.the B-29 looks nothing like the lancaster.
:furious
2.the b-29 can never be replaced its to special and a big part of history.
:furious
3.the most reason i want it is it will be cool in the cockpit and fun to fly.
:furious
so that would never work.
Dam squeaker trolling the BBS. Do us all a favor, go to summer school or summer camp.
-
Simple solution. If Hi tech put the B-29 in AH2, they should limit its airfields like the ME-163. Only available at certain airfields, seems logical; unless I am starting to get senile.
<S>
Speak
-
we have a better chance of getting arena caps to be removed than u guys getting your b29's :devil.
semp
-
what do you get for being IN this thread?
semp
-
why do the B29 threads keep getting bumped from a year ago?
Why did this get bumped when there was ANOTHER B29 thread already within the top10 threads in the listings? :headscratch:
OHH!!! and IN for the bump...
(http://banilla.com/xanga/bellybump.gif)
-
Be prepared for a disturbing image below :aok
(http://banilla.com/xanga/bellybump.gif)
-
Damn this thread is old.
I guess anything with a B-29 in it is a Bump worthy thread to Cooldued.
And this was made back when I was new and unreasonable.
Beaufighter please!
-
Why did this get bumped when there was ANOTHER B29 thread already within the top10 threads in the listings? :headscratch:
OHH!!! and IN for the bump...
(http://banilla.com/xanga/bellybump.gif)
Squeaker season...
A one spot squeaker
(http://72.167.47.62/imgs/fish1/one-spot-squeaker-profile.jpg)
Full of squeakers
(http://www.juliespetmarket.com/images/squirell-squeaker-mat.jpg)
Can't get a way from them
(http://image.made-in-china.com/2f0j00MBQadboGYWkE/8-Brown-Plush-Gorilla-W-Squeaker-Dog-Toy-SWPT001-.jpg)
-
It's squeaker season!
it is? dangit, forgot to buy my gear :mad:
no way!!!
1.the B-29 looks nothing like the lancaster.
:furious
2.the b-29 can never be replaced its to special and a big part of history.
:furious
3.the most reason i want it is it will be cool in the cockpit and fun to fly.
:furious
so that would never work.
sigh.... time to tell it how it is.....
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/NoB29.jpg)
-
You know, every time someone asks for a B-29, it makes God so angry he allows another Ben Stiller movie to be made.
True that
-
when i was a noob a couple years ago i called HTC for some problem i was having, anyway was talking to pyro (Doug) and i brought up the 29. He said something to the effect that they would have to redo all airfields, and it would be about as much work as modeling 10 planes. He also said ONE DAY it might happen but no time soon.
Here are the specs from both b29 and b24 i can see it would be a big undertaking, but would kick donut if they did it.
B29 specs from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29_Superfortress#Specifications_.28B-29.29
General characteristics
* Crew: 11 (5 officers, 6 enlisted): (A/C)Airplane Commander, Pilot, flight engineer (a rated pilot),[30][31] bombardier, navigator, radio operator, radar operator, blister gunners (two), CFC upper gunner, and tail gunner
* Length: 99 ft 0 in (30.2 m)
* Wingspan: 141 ft 3 in (43.1 m)
* Height: 29 ft 7 in (8.5 m)
* Wing area: 1,736 sqft (161.3 m²)
* Empty weight: 74,500 lb (33,800 kg)
* Loaded weight: 120,000 lb (54,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 133,500 lb (60,560 kg – 135,000 lb plus combat load (144,000 lb on record[18]))
* Powerplant: 4× Wright R-3350-23 and 23A turbosupercharged radial engines, 2,200 hp (1,640 kW) each
* * Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0241
* Drag area: 41.16 ft² (3.82 m²)
* Aspect ratio: 11.50
Performance
* Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
* Stall speed: 105 mph (91 knots, 170 km/h)
* Combat range: 3,250 mi (2,820 nmi, 5,230 km)
* Ferry range: 5,600 mi (4,900 nmi, 9,000 km, (record 5,839 mi, 5,074 nmi, 9,397 km[18]))
* Service ceiling: 33,600 ft (10,200 m)
* Rate of climb: 900 ft/min (4.6 m/s)
* Wing loading: 69.12 lb/sqft (337 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.073 hp/lb (121 W/kg)
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 16.8
Armament
* Guns:
o 10× .50 in (12.7 mm) caliber Browning M2/ANs in remote controlled turrets
o 2 x .50 in and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon in tail position (the cannon was eventually removed as it proved unreliable in service )
o B-29B-BW – All armament and sighting equipment removed except for tail position; initially 2 x .50 in M2/AN and 1× 20 mm M2 cannon, later 3 x 2 x .50 in M2/AN with APG-15 gun-laying radar fitted as standard.
* Bombs: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout
B24 Stats from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-24J_Liberator#Specifications_.28B-24J.29
General characteristics
* Crew: 7-10
* Length: 67 ft 8 in (20.6 m)
* Wingspan: 110 ft 0 in (33.5 m)
* Height: 18 ft 0 in (5.5 m)
* Wing area: 1,048 ft² (97.4 m²)
* Empty weight: 36,500 lb (16,590 kg)
* Loaded weight: 55,000 lb (25,000 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 65,000 lb (29,500 kg)
* Powerplant: 4× Pratt & Whitney R-1830 turbosupercharged radial engines, 1,200 hp (900 kW) each
* Zero-lift drag coefficient: 0.0406
* Drag area: 42.54 ft² (3.95 m²)
* Aspect ratio: 11.55
Performance
* Maximum speed: 290 mph (250 kn, 470 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 215 mph (187 kn, 346 km/h)
* Stall speed: 95 mph (83 kn, 153 km/h)
* Combat radius: 2,100 mi (1,800 nmi, 3,400 km)
* Ferry range: 3,700 mi (3,200 nmi, 6,000 km)
* Service ceiling: 28,000 ft (8,500 m)
* Rate of climb: 1,025 ft/min (5.2 m/s)
* Wing loading: 52.5 lb/ft² (256 kg/m²)
* Power/mass: 0.0873 hp/lb (144 W/kg)
* Lift-to-drag ratio: 12.9
Armament
* Guns: 10 × .50 caliber (12.7 mm) M2 Browning machine guns in 4 turrets and two waist positions
* Bombs:
o Short range (˜400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
o Long range (˜800 mi): 5,000 lb (2,300 kg)
o Very long range (˜1,200 mi): 2,700 lb (1,200 kg)
<S> DEEMAN
I dont see how that mandates redoing the airfields
-
I dont see how that mandates redoing the airfields
Because the existing runways are not long enough.
ack-ack
-
that wouldnt be that much could it?
-
I dont see how that mandates redoing the airfields
Basically, the B29 needs a long runway so that it can reach take off speed. Even though the engines were powerful, a heavily loaded B29 isnt going to accelerate like your "B25" would.
-
that wouldnt be that much could it?
goodness gracious, how many times do we have to say it?
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/NoB29.jpg)
:)
-
goodness gracious, how many times do we have to say it?
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/NoB29.jpg)
:)
LOL nice try
really, its just extending the runway, right? or maybe only have a few bases that can handle the b29
-
Nope, its extending the runway on every airfield, on every map. That would entail redoing every map in the system, big undertaking.
Wurzel
-
it would also require widening of the bomber hangars because the B-29 wouldnt fit (although i dont think anyone in their right mind would up a B-29 from the hangar :lol)
-
that wouldnt be that much could it?
Yes it would.
ack-ack
-
i think it should only be on the larger airbases,its a little less work for them,still fun for us :D
-
I got an Idea.... how about endless ammo, planes able to make 1800 turns, no blackouts, no red outs, unlimited speed, the ability to warp over to the enemy's HQ, titanium around pilots with cannon proof glass, anti HO button (to evade the constant HO's), afterburners for prop aircraft air to air missiles with laser lock. GV's with lasers to guide eggs to Spawn campers.
I would get this plane at 1000 perkies.
OH yea and if God was one of us..........
1.lol
2. what dose HO mean?
-
2. what dose HO mean?
Head On.
ack-ack
-
You'll start seeing them once you get to middle school.
2. what dose HO mean?
-
You'll start seeing them once you get to middle school.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
You'll start seeing them once you get to middle school.
then most of them stop by senior year in high school :cry
-
oh god sorry for me being born in 1996 i can't help the year i was born in and i am not a "squeaker" i have had so many people say i was mature and P.S the squad isn't a squad of squeakers so before you comment like that do some research will ya
:salute ACEMAN
If you were born in 96, you deffinantly do not need to be playing most games. You really should not be playing online games.
-
goodness gracious, how many times do we have to say it?
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/NoB29.jpg)
:)
Ah man, that made me laugh.
ack-ack
-
I'd rather have the 10 aircraft they could do instead of a B-29A.
-
LOL nice try
really, its just extending the runway, right? or maybe only have a few bases that can handle the b29
Or just not have the B-29 at all. problem solved.now HTC doesnt have to extend runways.
-
If you were born in 96, you deffinantly do not need to be playing most games. You really should not be playing online games.
Good point. The young ones ought to be outside playing baseball or something. Getting some exercise. On the matter of the B29, I would much rather see some early WW2 aircraft added in game first. Just my two cents.
-
You'll start seeing them once you get to middle school.
LOL
-
You'll start seeing them once you get to middle school.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
then most of them stop by senior year in high school :cry
not true, first two years of college as well :cheers:
-
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
not true, first two years of college as well :cheers:
But those are the fun kind, they're in their 'experimental' phase. ;)
ack-ack
-
But those are the fun kind, they're in their 'experimental' phase. ;)
ack-ack
+1. 1% will do that as a professional career.
-
skuzz locked up a crapload of B29 threads but left this one out? :headscratch:
-
(http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/4788/lockh.gif) (http://img169.imageshack.us/i/lockh.gif/)
-
But those are the fun kind, they're in their 'experimental' phase. ;)
ack-ack
very true :banana:
-
skuzz locked up a crapload of B29 threads but left this one out? :headscratch:
Yea, after this one is locked, some zit face dweeb will come a long and post another wish for the B-29.
-
This one has a better conversation maybe? :uhoh
skuzz locked up a crapload of B29 threads but left this one out? :headscratch:
-
Lets see a plane we all can agree on.... B-29 SUPER FORTRESS :O
this would be a fun bird to fly. i hope HiTech will be able to make this plane Please! :cry
:salute :cheers:
-
He already said no a zillion times.
Semp
-
this should be good :bolt:
-
He already said no a zillion times.
Semp
He did?
-
He did?
Yes.
-
Can you show me this? I have not seen HIM say that.
-
Yes.
Show me this to never seen it
-
only if we add the Ki-109 to counter :P
-
Rubber Duckies cant fly
-
Show me this to never seen it
There have been sooo many B-29 threads in the past years. Hitech has always came in and said no. He even created a BBS chat filter to change B-29 to "rubber ducky". :lol
Im not going to search anything for you. its not that hard to find, there is even a 163 page thread about it.
-
I think I've heard him say no to the nuke, but can't recall him saying no to the plane.
-
He has said no a zillion times (zillion + 1 now). He said if he was to add it then people would then start a "have the nuke" thread. Besides somehing about he would perk it so high nobody would have enough perkies. Why not wish get rid of the arena caps. That would happen first.
Semp
-
He has said no a zillion times
Semp
A Zillion???
Thats ALOT!!! :O
-
Settle down Squiddie...
It seems you're getting a bit restless; the meds wearing off? :rolleyes:
-
lilsquid,
The search bar at the top of the forums page works wonders. Use it.
-
There have been sooo many B-29 threads in the past years. Hitech has always came in and said no. He even created a BBS chat filter to change B-29 to "rubber ducky". :lol
Im not going to search anything for you. its not that hard to find, there is even a 163 page thread about it.
Umm no he didn't and it was the skuzzy that did the filter.
-
Squidkid wishes for things but doesn't even play the game anymore. :rolleyes:
-
Yes.
When?
-
I think it is funny that we have friggen jets but not the end of the war awesome bomber. I mean really we have JETS JETS JETS JETS! Why would a prop bomber be so feared?
-
:cry
this was all i saw....... :noid
-
I think it is funny that we have friggen jets but not the end of the war awesome bomber. I mean really we have JETS JETS JETS JETS! Why would a prop bomber be so feared?
lets see
very fast (i think like 350mph not sure)
bombload awesome(yes even without the nuke :neener:)
guns: look this guns are radio controled not maned(no PWs in gunners) and are small so its hard to take them out and its got a 20MM cannon in the tail
if i where a 262 i would be scared
-
No.
-
A Zillion???
Thats ALOT!!! :O
Sorry I checked the past threads, its actually he said no a gazillion times. (I think that's even more, isnt it?)
semp
-
I just did a google search, and he's actually said no a googol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol) times.
-
Sorry I checked the past threads, its actually he said no a gazillion times. (I think that's even more, isnt it?)
semp
I just did a google search, and he's actually said no a googol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol) times.
That is a lot either though he only made 5932.
-
Umm no he didn't and it was the skuzzy that did the filter.
I want the rubber ducky thread back!!! skuzzy pweeeeseeee!!???!??!?!? :confused:
In before the B29 thread merger and inevitable lockage :rolleyes:
-
I just did a google search, and he's actually said no a googol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Googol) times.
Isnt a googol what they yell when somebody scores in soccer?
semp
-
Lets see a plane we all can agree on... The B-29 Rubber Ducky. I would like to be able to flatten an entire town in two passes and have leftovers for the base, because gameplay isn't gamey enough. :cry I can only up Lancasters, but they have no underside protection and can only fly around 280 mph which is way too slow for those dang uppers which seem to always catch up to me in time to shoot me down. :cry I would like the B-29 so I can be teh big bomber guy. :D
Everything you said without saying it.
-
Give him the B model do a little research :D
-
This thread deserves a .
-
I never would have believed you could beat a dead horse this many times. :O
And by extension, when Skuzzy or who ever changed the name to "Rubber Ducky" did so, I could only assume, it was with HiTech's blessing. :aok
I think they should change it back to Rubber Ducky again... BRING BACK THE DUCKY :rock
-
Do you think that the "Boeing B-29 Superfortress" should be in the game to?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg)
-
Run for the hills JBJB...
-
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/Flame-Flame_on.jpg)
-
Sweet!! It's actually been a while since I've seen one of these.
-
This is all Oakrangers fault. :devil
-
(http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/3945/a521.gif) (http://img830.imageshack.us/i/a521.gif/)
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/bunnykp6.gif)
-
Wish the main page would make it clear that no B29 or m18 will ever be in the game :).
Semp
-
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/bunnykp6.gif)
:lol
-
See rule #4.
-
Wish the main page would make it clear that no B29 or m18 will ever be in the game :).
Semp
:confused: :cry
-
Do you think that the "Boeing B-29 Superfortress" should be in the game to?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg)
And so the fate is sealed on another kitten :D
-
Do you think that the "Boeing B-29 Superfortress" should be in the game to?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg)
Sure. :aok
-
I imagine this is what the forums look like with this wish...
(http://trialshoe.blogspot.com/blogphots/rubber%20duck%20race.jpg)
-
Welcome to the bb. Were wishes have been squelch for the past 13 years :).
Semp
-
(http://www.esportsea.com/global/media_preview.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.starcraftmazter.net%2F4chan%2Ffor_forums%2Fthis_thread_again.jpg)
-
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/213/clapf.gif)
-
(http://img267.imageshack.us/img267/213/clapf.gif)
isnt that clip from Citizen Kane (different face, obviously)
-
Don't rightly know, it was one of Dichotomy's GIFs that he threw up for everyone to grab.
I just think it's funny the way the guy stares at the actor with that blank smile. :D
-
I imagine this is what the forums look like with this wish...
(http://trialshoe.blogspot.com/blogphots/rubber%20duck%20race.jpg)
THE RUBBER DUCKIES ARE BACK!!!
-
Do you think that the "Boeing B-29 Superfortress" should be in the game to?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/B-29_in_flight.jpg)
No. Not until a whole slew of other planes get added first.
-
Oh what the heck... it's been awhile. Here ya go:
(http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l273/woosle_2006/NoB29.jpg)
-
(http://hostingbytes.us/images/2/751685.jpg)
-
(http://img816.imageshack.us/img816/5402/nukeg.gif) (http://img816.imageshack.us/i/nukeg.gif/)
-
Do you think that the "Boeing B-29 Superfortress" should be in the game to?
Sure, as soon as every other airplane that ever flew a combat mission in WWII from very beginning to the bitter end, has been added to the planeset.
-
Sure... Disable formations for the 29 and perk it heavily. Lancs would still be the better choice in most roles. I don't see why it couldn't be added. If perked and lacking the option for formations, its use would be very limited though.
-
:noid :noid
-
what the heck is a B-29?
-
what the heck is a B-29?
Some kind of sandwich at TJ's burgers.
-
When this thread breaks 53 pages tell me. :cheers:
The Not Real STEALTH(y) or Rook.
-
NOOOK!
-
where is that "Why we need Nookie" gif when you need it?
-
I didn't expect another one of these, considering a couple of them got locked to reply to it
-
Oh, how i would love to argue why the B-29 should be on AH!
-
there is no reason why the B-29 shouldnt be added, the nuke carrying B-29's "silver plated" where limited just like other models here in AH now there where variants that where limitedly made, like the 4x20mm A-36/P-51 .. etc etc.. but the B-29 has the production to qualify and saw service in WII.
-
there is no reason why the B-29 shouldnt be added, the nuke carrying B-29's "silver plated" where limited just like other models here in AH now there where variants that where limitedly made, like the 4x20mm A-36/P-51 .. etc etc.. but the B-29 has the production to qualify and saw service in WII.
Get ready for a pile-up on you.
-
there is no reason why the B-29 shouldnt be added, the nuke carrying B-29's "silver plated" where limited just like other models here in AH now there where variants that where limitedly made, like the 4x20mm A-36/P-51 .. etc etc.. but the B-29 has the production to qualify and saw service in WII.
Rubber Ducky... :noid does no one get the rubber ducky quote?
quote this and reply to it and suddenly the thread is about ducks and better than about the B29! :x
-
+1
:bolt:
:neener:
-
Rubber Ducky... :noid does no one get the rubber ducky quote?
quote this and reply to it and suddenly the thread is about ducks and better than about the B29! :x
Rubber DUCKY!!! :furious
-
there is no reason why the B-29 shouldnt be added, the nuke carrying B-29's "silver plated" where limited just like other models here in AH now there where variants that where limitedly made, like the 4x20mm A-36/P-51 .. etc etc.. but the B-29 has the production to qualify and saw service in WII.
Haven't seen a reason why it should be in AH...especially when much more important aircraft aren't.
-
any aircraft that fits the critria should be in. problem is you have a rag tag team of people and not a big company to code the planes, in most online games you have a slew of people working on updates and upgrades for the games. most MMORPG you get a new update and upgrades each month. here its whenever the 1-2 people get done working on it. theres no reason why any plane can't be flown in certain situations. some may be hanger queens, some may not. obvioiusly the more popular ones will come first.
-
problem is you have a rag tag team of people and not a big company to code the planes, in most online games you have a slew of people working on updates and upgrades for the games. most MMORPG you get a new update and upgrades each month.
I prefer quality over quantity.
-
quality has nothing to do with it. theres not enough people to do the job of having news planes coded. i would expect quality to be the same wiether 1 or 50 people did it.
-
The ol' "bait the game developer into commenting in the B-29 thread by insulting him" routine. Ho-hum.
-
(http://i487.photobucket.com/albums/rr232/hunterneary/smileys/tehbignookie.gif)
-
I think the main reason it shouldn't be added is because HT himself said it won't be added.
Semp
-
I think the main reason it shouldn't be added is because HT himself said it won't be added.
Semp
I see would like to see that post he said that. You are not the first person that made that statement and i have asked to provide that post that he said that. Starting to think that is a urban myth.
-
its obvious this debate is really between a B-29 "pullman" and a B-29 "silver plate" model , i could see where adding the "silver plate" would not make good business, as a regular B-29 would not carry such weapon. and the silver plate model doesnt meet the critiria of the game due to numbers made (3 total (42-65209, -216, and -217). and also there was a total of what 4-5 total atom bombs made during the entire WWII era so i would not expect or a nuke carrying B-29 to be ever in this game. plain and simple. a regular B-29 i could see maybe not now, but at some point once other more popular planes are added, it will.
-
any aircraft that fits the critria should be in. problem is you have a rag tag team of people and not a big company to code the planes, in most online games you have a slew of people working on updates and upgrades for the games. most MMORPG you get a new update and upgrades each month. here its whenever the 1-2 people get done working on it. theres no reason why any plane can't be flown in certain situations. some may be hanger queens, some may not. obvioiusly the more popular ones will come first.
Do you have any clue what you're saying? I don't see any indication that you do. Nothing that you stated is fact.
-
do you play any other online games like WoW or Asheron's Call? every month they come out with new armor weapons and quests , like clock work. the teams that work on those are much bigger then those at high tech. how many people does high tech have working on coding new planes for the game?? i can bet its less then a major MMORPG does.
-
do you play any other online games like WoW or Asheron's Call? every month they come out with new armor weapons and quests , like clock work. the teams that work on those are much bigger then those at high tech. how many people does high tech have working on coding new planes for the game?? i can bet its less then a major MMORPG does.
Do you know how easy it is to add an object that doesn't have any real world characteristics? It's as easy as taking the file of an existing object, modify it to fit the new model (which is just as easy to create) and add it to your little fantasy world, 1 week max. The quests are nothing but scripts, 2 weeks of actual keyboard work. They have to do that because all you kids get bored quickly.
Again, no indication that you know what you're talking about.
-
I think the main reason it shouldn't be added is because HT himself said it won't be added.
Semp
I would like to know where he said this. When the perk system first came out Pyro himself used the B29 as an example of a perk aircraft.
EDIT: Here is where Pyro mentions the B29.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,14716.0.html
-
its obvious this debate is really between a B-29 "pullman" and a B-29 "silver plate" model , i could see where adding the "silver plate" would not make good business, as a regular B-29 would not carry such weapon. and the silver plate model doesnt meet the critiria of the game due to numbers made (3 total (42-65209, -216, and -217). and also there was a total of what 4-5 total atom bombs made during the entire WWII era so i would not expect or a nuke carrying B-29 to be ever in this game. plain and simple. a regular B-29 i could see maybe not now, but at some point once other more popular planes are added, it will.
Columbus, Columbus, Columbus. Nobody is talking about having the atom bomb with the B-29. I have made a strong argument that the B-29 dropped more bombs (in tonnage) then the two atom bombs together.
-
do you play any other online games like WoW or Asheron's Call? every month they come out with new armor weapons and quests , like clock work. the teams that work on those are much bigger then those at high tech. how many people does high tech have working on coding new planes for the game?? i can bet its less then a major MMORPG does.
I play WoW on and off aswell, but you have to remember, 11,000,000+ subscribers on WoW to 500+ (off the top of my head, feel free to correct) for AH means bigger budget for WoW and bigger demand. The way AH runs stuff is just fine. The way WoW runs stuff is just fine. Leave them to themselves.
-
my point is though. for AH to code new stuff in with a small staff isnt as easy as a Major MMORPG. but if AH did have a bigger stuff decaded to coding new planes you would see more planes being introduced then the current rate. unless AH just doesnt want that. your guess is as good as mine.
-
I see what you are saying columbus, with more labor, comes more productivity. However, the customer base in WoW and AH is very very different. I wouldn't say the subscriber number is as low as 500, but only a few thousand I would guess. They update the game enough to keep the majority of people happy and I don't think that more regular updates would significantly increase subscriptions; so I would assume they've made the decision it's not worth the investment to hire more labor.
-
Bring on the B32!!!.....................well no not really :neener:
-
rubber ducky :noid
-
I don't see how adding more planes will "enhance" my experience. I love this game (hate the caps/eny). Games like wow will never compare to aw or ah, we are talking about two different things that have nothing in common. One based on real life, other on fantasy.
Semp
-
I don't see how adding more planes will "enhance" my experience. I love this game (hate the caps/eny). Games like wow will never compare to aw or ah, we are talking about two different things that have nothing in common. One based on real life, other on fantasy.
Semp
You don't want any more planes because you only fly the Spit8. Most pople have a favorite but also like to try many of the other deathtraps in the game. Not really sure what you have against the B-29 as you're not likely to see them in a furball. :headscratch:
-
You don't want any more planes because you only fly the Spit8. Most pople have a favorite but also like to try many of the other deathtraps in the game. Not really sure what you have against the B-29 as you're not likely to see them in a furball. :headscratch:
:rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Bring on the B32!!!.....................well no not really :neener:
I would love to see the B-32, but we both know that is a definite big NO.
-
While we're on the topic, I'll take an F-15.
And a B-52.
That is all.
-
You don't want any more planes because you only fly the Spit8. Most pople have a favorite but also like to try many of the other deathtraps in the game. Not really sure what you have against the B-29 as you're not likely to see them in a furball. :headscratch:
actually I was only replying to people talking about how other games have monthly updates/with new toys released every week and how ah only has a couple of people while the other games have thousands of coaders. All that talk was bs.
I wish all the plane set was available, except for the b29. I would love to have the a26, been looking forward to it since I joined ah. however most planes would just sit in the hangars and would not get used. I would rather ah spend the time, creating even better looking trees and bushes that will flip my tank in a heartbeat :D or make the current planes just as pretty as the new mossie :x.
and I hate to admit this but as much as I love the spit8, i love the Il2 even more, that is actually my favorite plane and my second favorite plane is the b26 (which will be replaced as soon as the a26 is available :uhoh) with the spit8 being third. which in the coming year will be replaced by the p38. I got the pedals and ch stick with the intention of using the p38 as my main ride, I love how del and the other p38 flyers whip my but with it :airplane:. but I havent had time with me working swing all the time to set up time with a trainer.
as for not wanting the b29, only reason is that it is so fast that you would actually had to be waiting for it to kill it. kindda like I do with the b26 when i sink the cv and have zeroes trying to catch me. :salute.
semp
-
as for not wanting the b29, only reason is that it is so fast that you would actually had to be waiting for it to kill it. kindda like I do with the b26 when i sink the cv and have zeroes trying to catch me. :salute.
semp
That is your whole reason why you do not want the B-29?! Well, i guess that is better then whinning about the it having the Atom bomb, heavy bomb load or the 20 mm guns for defensive.
-
The B-29 has been mentioned on the Aces High web page for years, time they give it to us or tell us to STFU and take it off the website.
-
The B-29 has been mentioned on the Aces High web page for years, time they give it to us or tell us to STFU and take it off the website.
im waiting for the STFU
-
HTC would be stupid to come out and say a mass produced bomber (almost 4000 built) that influenced heavily the defeat of Japan during WW2 would be excluded from the game that relys specifically on WW2 for its game content simply because some people think it is too shiny, or too big, or too American, or too heavily armed, or carries too many bombs, or...or....or
HTC isn't stupid.
B-29 deserves it's place in the game along with all the others.
-
When I first arrived, I'd swear, under the perk system description, the words "earn perks to fly the B29" existed there.
I'd swear.... :salute
-
HTC would be stupid to come out and say a mass produced bomber (almost 4000 built) that influenced heavily the defeat of Japan during WW2 would be excluded from the game that relys specifically on WW2 for its game content simply because some people think it is too shiny, or too big, or too American, or too heavily armed, or carries too many bombs, or...or....or
HTC isn't stupid.
B-29 deserves it's place in the game along with all the others.
Oh, it will be perked like the 262, maybe more. I do not think a lot of ppl will up in it just to lose that many.
-
went down the hole into the mass 170 page wishlist lock! :rofl this one made it 3-4 days!!! :x :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Wheres my b29 you ask? oh still on the wishlist page waiting...i think a b29 could be a good addition to the game and it could be a perk plane...lets say 60 perks per plane? going up/down depending on players in the arena? :joystick: also no nukes should be in order...you could kill 3 hq's all in one run if you could drop one nuke per plane :uhoh well if we could get a b29 eventually that would be great... :salute heres a pretty good picture of one...take a good look http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress_Bockscar_2_USAF.jpg
-
Wheres my b29 you ask? oh still on the wishlist page waiting...i think a b29 could be a good addition to the game and it could be a perk plane...lets say 60 perks per plane? going up/down depending on players in the arena? :joystick: also no nukes should be in order...you could kill 3 hq's all in one run if you could drop one nuke per plane :uhoh well if we could get a b29 eventually that would be great... :salute
What's that saying? Want in one hand and **** in the other...
-
Perk it high, make it 333 each so a full formation of them costs you 1k in perks on average.
Then sell the nuke for about 20,000 perks.
Then sell the arming instructions for the nuke (without being properly armed it doesn't go boom)
for at least 50k.
Ohh and failure rate should be at least 25%, just for the whines. :)
-
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v99/dichotomy/Facepalm/Facepalm.gif)
This started badly, the trains are headed towards each other, and I predict disaster...
-
I'm actually getting to tell someone no to the B29 that is actually a thread about the B29.
NO!
-
No B-29 for you.
In.
-
In.
Its all downhill from here.
-
(http://i785.photobucket.com/albums/yy134/Kassill1/Flame-Flame_on.jpg)
IN
-
no no no watch the 91st do a b29 raid you how they level a feld but i wish :furious
-
no no no watch the 91st do a b29 raid you how they level a feld but i wish :furious
No habla espanol, english please.
-
well the 91st can level a field in b26's and that takes some skill but with nukes and b29s with the 91st = pure map disaster... :bolt: if you could get 2 formations of b29s to each enemy hq then your team could win with one simple step! :x
-
well the 91st can level a field in b26's and that takes some skill but with nukes and b29s with the 91st = pure map disaster... :bolt: if you could get 2 formations of b29s to each enemy hq then your team could win with one simple step! :x
:huh You don't win the map by getting to HQ.
-
Im tired of people thinking the B-29 would be a win all. Actually would just absorb just a little more damage than any bomber.
-
It is time. Give it to us.
-
(http://images.mirror.co.uk/upl/m4/aug2009/0/1/british-sniper-pic-pa-3840447.jpg)
He is lookin at you Skorpion
READY
AIN
FIRE!
-
Give them the B-29B All guns removed but tail :t
-
Or just give me a B-25J and finish the thread.
-
no no no watch the 91st do a b29 raid you how they level a feld but i wish :furious
What did we do wrong now :airplane:
-
Wheres my b29 you ask? oh still on the wishlist page waiting...i think a b29 could be a good addition to the game and it could be a perk plane...lets say 60 perks per plane? going up/down depending on players in the arena? :joystick: also no nukes should be in order...you could kill 3 hq's all in one run if you could drop one nuke per plane :uhoh well if we could get a b29 eventually that would be great... :salute heres a pretty good picture of one...take a good look http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9d/Boeing_B-29_Superfortress_Bockscar_2_USAF.jpg
How do you figure it would it be "a good addition" for anything more than milk running squeaker coolness? I can see it now...
Squeaker1: "dood let's grab some b-29s and bomb the hq"
Squeaker2: "oh yeah that sounds awesome"
Squeaker3: "my mom wants me to eat dinner first"
Squeaker4: "what field?"
Squeaker5: "i like the supergirl skin, it has my favorite colors"
Squeaker6: "coooooolll b29s. are we bombing something?"
Squeaker7: "if we kill the hq we can roll a bunch of bases while their dar is out"
Squeaker1: "yeah, we could win the map and get lots of points"
Squeaker8: "i need a gunner...anyone want to be my gunner...i need a gunner...can someone pleeeez be my gunner...how do i get a gunner..."
For once you should tell the truth, what you really want is a bomber that can fly faster and higher than anything but jets and carries a massive load of bombs because you like to "win de warz" but you haven't figured out how to precision bomb a base with Lancasters at 30k.
-
rubber ducky, you're so fun, you make trolling fun for everyone...
IN
-
Can't seem to fit a B-29 IN here anywhere, Doc.
(http://i647.photobucket.com/albums/uu193/Pyron27/imagesCAOYU5D7.jpg)
-
Squeaker8: "i need a gunner...anyone want to be my gunner...i need a gunner...can someone pleeeez be my gunner...how do i get a gunner..."
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
Honestly, at this point I just want to see some improvement for the bomber aspect of this game. I'll take something as simple as convergence settings for the flight's turrets so you can better engage someone past 550 yards, or more points or impact on the game after bombing a strat. I imagine it would be easier to implement these features than adding the B-29 but even so, I would still like to fly this thing one day.
-
Honestly, at this point I just want to see some improvement for the bomber aspect of this game. I'll take something as simple as convergence settings for the flight's turrets so you can better engage someone past 550 yards, or more points or impact on the game after bombing a strat. I imagine it would be easier to implement these features than adding the B-29 but even so, I would still like to fly this thing one day.
For 1000 dollars you can ride one in real life
-
I think I'd rather settle for flying one in the game for 15 a month. Now there's a good idea.....
-
I want it just to end this aspect of the wish list. :aok
-
exactly. perk the hell out of it and restrict it to the same airfields as the comet and you would only see it on rare occasions in the MA as well as never seeing another B-29 thread again!
-
Pe-2, G4M, re-model of the Ki-67. oh, and
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/NoB29.jpg)
have a fantastic day :)
IN
-
B-25J before B-29. :noid
-
He-111 H-11 before the B-29. :furious :lol
-
Pe-2, G4M, re-model of the Ki-67. oh, and
(http://i804.photobucket.com/albums/yy329/Wildcat1995/NoB29.jpg)
have a fantastic day :)
IN
Yes.