Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: frank3 on March 16, 2006, 05:16:41 PM
-
I don't know if it's been suggested before, but it would be nice to see a B-29. They were used alot, and even threw the first nuke!
-
You are totally wrong Sir! The first nuke was used by the Luftwaffe in the german attack on Pearl Harbor in 1940. Galland himself dropped it while flying a Fw-88! :D
-
yeah....
well...
The B-29 would drop the Fw-88 too!
-
I feel we really need a B29. It would bring balance and fairness to the MA.
-
Originally posted by frank3
I don't know if it's been suggested before, but it would be nice to see a B-29. They were used alot, and even threw the first nuke!
HAHAHA!! oh frank. always making us laugh.
-
Ive lost count but left at 531,312,647,904,215,764,382,190,101 times that the b29 has been requested. :eek:
I still say no.
-
i think we should have it, but, that auttomated fire control system would take 4ever to put into a video game!
-
Wait a minute, don't we ALREADY have the remote guns that all fire on the same target? :D
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Wait a minute, don't we ALREADY have the remote guns that all fire on the same target? :D
DING DING, YOU win a brand new car.
I've always wondered if someone would point this out. How many times have a seen a thread talking about the awesome gunnery system on the 29? nine million? at least.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
I feel we really need a B29. It would bring balance and fairness to the MA.
It would bring balance and fairness to the wishlist too! (not to mention peace and quiet)
-
Frank, your grammar is too good for this to be taken seriously.
-
Then again, I wasn't trying to be serious ;)
-
(I know :aok )
-
Yea 2 tons of bombs and 300+mph at 31,000ft......NO
dont wana see this every 15mins
(http://tm.ask.com/r?t=c&s=p&sv=0a300513&uid=01206F29B0EFFA424&sid=14C66B50B59DDD144&o=312&id=30751&p=fr&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.therockalltimes.co.uk%2F2003%2F06%2F30%2Fnuclear.jpg)
-
im sure it could carry more than two tons. am i mistaken in this? besides, no nukes cuz they werent produced in enough numbers to justify their implamentation. indeed, there were only a couple b-29s that were retrofitted to carry nukes anyway, so the perk price for a nuke superfortress would be in the millions. and unless you were a crack pilot, you would probably be hit by your own bomb blast and die every time.
-
OMG OMG OMG n00000kkeess!! NEEEEEEEEE!!!!
(http://[IMG]http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y46/b1leeb0b/nookie.gif)[/IMG]
-
Originally posted by Saxman
Wait a minute, don't we ALREADY have the remote guns that all fire on the same target? :D
Yeah, but they aren't radar guided.
-
You guys would love the B-29's that were converted to carry nukes. They had almost all of their guns removed.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Yeah, but they aren't radar guided.
the guns in the b-29 only compensated for bullet drop, they did not lead the target for you.
-
Originally posted by SMIDSY
the guns in the b-29 only compensated for bullet drop, they did not lead the target for you.
I'll take your word for it. Still..........
-
What's bullet drop?
-
Something that makes the bullets not to fly eternally?
-C+
-
Originally posted by frank3
What's bullet drop?
After a bullet leaves the muzzle of a gun it starts dropping due to the effects of gravity.
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
I feel we really need a B29. It would bring balance and fairness to the MA.
LOL Imagine a quite afternoon then from overths tree tops come a formation of B29's and blow's the crap out of sverything form 800 feet AGL,then turn around for another pass.The darn thing would have to be perked like the 262 to prevent this scenerio from happining.:eek:
-
Originally posted by frank3
I don't know if it's been suggested before, but it would be nice to see a B-29. They were used alot, and even threw the first nuke!
(http://static.flickr.com/56/115390603_022122c396.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
(http://static.flickr.com/56/115390603_022122c396.jpg)
Two Words....KILL SHOOTER
-
Lol on the killshooter
But the nuke is actually a very natural thing
(http://www.brooks.af.mil/afioh/Graphics/Mushroom%20_Cloud.jpg)(http://www.pcbypaul.com/wpclipart/plants/mushroom.png)
-
Originally posted by frank3
But the nuke is actually a very natural thing
[/IMG]
I've always loved the illogical assumption that "natural" = "good for you."
Here's the ad campaign:
"It's natural! just like botulism, strychnine, radiation, and old age! Buy some today!"
-
Originally posted by gear
LOL Imagine a quite afternoon then from overths tree tops come a formation of B29's and blow's the crap out of sverything form 800 feet AGL,then turn around for another pass.The darn thing would have to be perked like the 262 to prevent this scenerio from happining.:eek:
Perked, yes, but as much as a 262? It's not as if it's likely they'll put a nuke in it. I'd say more along the lines of the Ar234 in perks. Enough to keep it from being commonly used for your scenario.
-
234 there's a useless bird.May be fast but very small payload.
-
Specifications:
Boeing B-29A Superfortress
Dimensions:
Wing span: 141 ft. 3 in (43.05 m)
Length: 99 ft. 0 in (30.17 m)
Height: 29 ft. 7 in (9.02 m)
Wing Area: 1,736 sq ft (529.13 sq m)
Weights:
Empty: 72,208 lb (32,752 kg)
Maximum Take-Off: 140,000 lb (63,502 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed: 399 m.p.h. (642 km/h) at 30,000 ft (9,144 m)
Service Ceiling: 23,950 ft (7,299 m)
Combat Ceiling: 36,150 ft (11,018 m)
Normal Range: 4,200 miles (6,759 km)
(with 18,000 lbs. (8,164 kg) bombs)
Powerplant:
Four Wright Aeronautical R-3350-57 Twin Row Radial
2,200 hp (1,640 kw) take-off, 2,500 hp (1,864) WE, Air Cooled
Armament:
Eight or twelve 50-cal. machine-guns. One 20mm cannon.
Maximum bomb Load: 20,000 lbs. (9,0710 kg)
Imagine what a formation could do with a 20000 pound payload(40 5oo pounders/20 1ooo pounders)
:O
This would make the ammo bunkers a primary target:aok
-
It could carry the weight, but could it carry that many bombs? (did it have that many holding points)
-
Originally posted by frank3
It could carry the weight, but could it carry that many bombs? (did it have that many holding points)
Typical B-29 bomb load, ready for loadingaprox 200 eggs:O
(http://history.independence.co.jp/ww2/raid/b02.jpg)
-
Originally posted by gear
(http://www.nps.gov/amme/wwii_museum/air_offensive/b-29_with_bombs_loading.jpg)
o..............m............. g............
I'D FLY THAT!
-
I took awhile but there's a full picture of the load out.
you count them and then multiply by 3 for a formation in the MA.
-
Does anyone remember that kid shark88 who constantly created a new thread every day requesting a b29 with a nuke? :lol This was in the ah1 days.
Anyway, after probably thousands of replies with all the threads total, we concluded that a nuke was out of the question and would totally unbalance gameplay, and a b29 was not necessary but could only be implemented with a high perk point cost.
-
Originally posted by gear
234 there's a useless bird.May be fast but very small payload.
Sure it is. Never said it wasn't. Just said B-29 should be perked more like it than a Me262.
-
Originally posted by Stallled
Does anyone remember that kid shark88 who constantly created a new thread every day requesting a b29 with a nuke? :lol This was in the ah1 days.
Anyway, after probably thousands of replies with all the threads total, we concluded that a nuke was out of the question and would totally unbalance gameplay, and a b29 was not necessary but could only be implemented with a high perk point cost.
Who is this "we" you speak of?
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
Sure it is. Never said it wasn't. Just said B-29 should be perked more like it than a Me262.Perked, yes, but as much as a 262? It's not as if it's likely they'll put a nuke in it. I'd say more along the lines of the Ar234 in perks. Enough to keep it from being commonly used for your scenario.
The 234 carries a max paload of 1500 pounds and has no other offensive qualities .It's perked at 55.
Now on the other hand thfe 262 is a good offensive fighter and is perked at182.
Now a b29 has good defensive fire power and has a VERY large payload(see a bove photo. count them well over 150 bombs) so why perk it like an ar234:huh
-
Originally posted by viper215
Yea 2 tons of bombs and 300+mph at 31,000ft......NO
more like 10 tons
-
Originally posted by gear
The 234 carries a max paload of 1500 pounds and has no other offensive qualities .It's perked at 55.
Now on the other hand thfe 262 is a good offensive fighter and is perked at182.
Now a b29 has good defensive fire power and has a VERY large payload(see a bove photo. count them well over 150 bombs) so why perk it like an ar234:huh
Yer wasting your time arguing with ChopSaw. He'll be right regardless.
Karaya
-
Like there will ever be a b29 in here.
-
Originally posted by gear
The 234 carries a max paload of 1500 pounds and has no other offensive qualities .It's perked at 55.
Now on the other hand thfe 262 is a good offensive fighter and is perked at182.
Now a b29 has good defensive fire power and has a VERY large payload(see a bove photo. count them well over 150 bombs) so why perk it like an ar234:huh
The Ar234 actually carries more like 3,300 lbs. of bombs. What you see there are 500 kg bombs not 500 lb. bombs. Not that it makes much difference, for the purposes of this discussion, under current MA settings. Right now the thing isn't much of a threat, although I have heard of them recently downing cv's when in formation. Their main claim to fame is the speed. Almost impossible to catch unless you're high when it comes by and dive on it or happen to be around in a 262. Given it's capabilities in AH, I don't know why it's perked the way it is.
The B-29 does have a massive bomb capacity, but look at the Lancaster III. Right now it's heaviest payload is 14 x 1,000 lb. bombs. At most the B-29 could carry 6 more of those. Yes, that's significant, but it doesn't make it the wonder bomber game buster of all time. There may be a lot of bombs in your picture, but what weight are they? If they're 100 lb. or 250 lb. they wouldn't do much in AH.
Then there's HTC and what they'll model for the load out. It's obvious they'll never give us a nuke and it's unlikely they'll give us a 22,000 lb. earthquake bomb. I'm told the Lancaster is supposed to have been able to carry that.
What you're looking at is a bit more defensive firepower, a bit more speed and a bit more ordnance capacity. I just don't think that's enough more to perk it so high every fighter around is going swarming it just to shoot down a high perk plane. It wouldn't be impossible to catch or to shoot down.
-
This subject has been hashed about numours times before.
The lancaster carries a large payload so why do we need the b29?
If anything there should be more axsis aircraft added:aok
-
Well we know there not 1000 pounders.
(http://www.ww2guide.com/usbombs.jpg)
-
Here's your b29 complete with nose art.:aok
(http://webzoom.freewebs.com/444thbg/fu-kemal.jpg)
-
(http://home.att.net/~sallyann2/cropped-look-angel.jpg)
The Real Last Mission of WWII
http://home.att.net/~sallyann2/last-mission.html
Every crew member waited breathlessly for the Bombs away and the steep diving turn that always followed. Finally it came. This time we unloaded forty 500-pound demolition bombs and Horrible Monster shuddered in relief. Darkness returned as we lost the searchlights and turned our tail to the fireworks. A deep breath, the first I'd taken since we started the bomb run, cleared my mind and restored my composure....but not for long. One of the crew in the rear reported that No. 4 engine was losing oil fast. It was shut down quickly and the prop was feathered. The pilot verified that all the crew members were OK
-
That's a lot of bombs all right. If HTC actually modeled the B-29 payload like that, you might have a point on the heavy perking. But witness the modeling of the Lancaster for a predictor. Fourteen thousand pound capacity for 1,000 lb. bombs and only 9,000 lb capacity for 500 lb bombs. That's with the 18 x 500 lb. and the 4K bomb.
My point is, it's unlikely HTC will model the B-29 to its fullest capabilities even if they did bring it to the game. However, if it was modeled to its full capabilities, perking it like a 262 might be justified.
-
Oh well, we could use a non-american bomber better, so far we already have 2 heavies
Something of a He-111 would be in order
-
Originally posted by frank3
Oh well, we could use a non-american bomber better, so far we already have 2 heavies
Something of a He-111 would be in order
He-111 would be a more appropriate choice.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
He-111 would be a more appropriate choice.
Karaya
Good for early war set up.
It's just a bit faster then a goon and would be cannon fodder for late war fighters.
Specifications (He 111H-16):
Engines: Two 1,350-hp Jumo 211F-2 inverted V-12 piston engines
Weight: Empty 19,136 lbs., Max Takeoff 30,865 lbs.
Wing Span: 74ft. 1.75in.
Length: 53ft. 9.5in.
Height: 13ft. 1.25in.
Performance:
Maximum Speed at Sea Level: 227 mph
Ceiling: 21,980 ft.
Range: 1,212 miles
Armament:
One 20-mm MG FF cannon;
One 13-mm (0.51-inch) MG 131 machine gun;
Three 7.92-mm (0.31-inch) MG 81Z machine guns;
Internal bomb-load of 2,205 pounds.
-
Now A b25 would be cool
:aok
-
Junkers Ju 188
(http://www.clubhyper.com/reference/images/ju188arb_1.jpg)
Type: Bomber (D-2 Reconnaissance)
Origin: Junkers Flugzeug und Motorenwerke AG
Models: Ju 188A, D and E series
Crew: Five
First Flight:
Ju 88B-0: Early 1940
Ju 88V27: September 1941
Ju 188V1: December 1941
Ju 188E-1: March 1942
Final Delivery: 1945-46 (French built)
Number Produced: 1,100
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Engine:
Ju 188A & Ju 188D:
Model: Junkers Jumo 213A
Type: 12-Cylinder inverted liquid cooled vee
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,776 hp
Ju 188E:
Model: BMW 801G-2
Type: 18-Cylinder two-row radials
Number: Two Horsepower: 1,700 hp
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dimensions:
Wing span: 72 ft. 2 in. (22m)
Length: 49 ft. 1 in. (14.96m)
Height: 14 ft. 7 in. (4.44m)
Wing Surface Area: 602.80 sq. ft.
Weights:
Empty:
Ju 188E-1: 21,825 lb. (9900 kg)
Loaded:
Ju 188A & D: 33,730 lb. (15,300 kg)
Ju 188E-1: 31,967 lb. (14,500 kg)
Performance:
Maximum Speed:
Ju 188A: 325 mph at 20,500 ft. (6250m)
Ju 188D: 350 mph at 27,000 ft. (8235m)
Ju 188E: 310 mph at 19,685 ft. (6000m)
Initial Climb: N/A
Service Ceiling:
Ju 188A: 33,000 ft. (10,060m)
Ju 188D: 36,090 ft. (11,000m)
Ju 188A: 31,170 ft. (9500m)
Range with 3,300 lb. (1500kg) bomb load:
Ju 188A & E: 1,360 miles (2160 km)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armament: Typical.
One 20mm MG 151/20 cannon in nose.
One 13mm MG 131 machine gun in dorsal turret.
One 13mm MG 131 machine gun manually aimed from rear dorsal position.
One 13mm MG 131 machine gun or
twin 7.92mm MG 81 machine gun manually aimed from rear ventral position.
Payload: Typical.
6,614 lb. (3000kg) of bombs internally or two 2,200 lb. (1000kg) torpedos under inner wings.
-
Originally posted by gear
Now A b25 would be cool
:aok
You're not the first I've heard this from. Why, exactly, would this be a desireable bomber? It only carries 5,000 lbs.
-
I would like to see the He111 and Do17 added.
-
The following is from a previous B-29 discussion. Perhaps this can generate some constructive ideas.
<>
-
Not goig to happen. There will be no WMD's .
-
Pardon my ignorance but what is a WMD?
-
Weapon of Mass Distruction:aok
-
Oh...Duh! Thanks
-
Originally posted by TyrNM
Could even have an A-Bomb option for taking out a base and city with a single bomb
And the base hit would be uncapturable because the radiation kills any troops you drop on it.
-
Only for a specified period of time - fairly short so that using the A-bomb has it's drawbacks.
-
Originally posted by TyrNM
The following is from a previous B-29 discussion. Perhaps this can generate some constructive ideas.
<>
Okay, I'm a proponent for the B-29's inclusion. I even think there'd be a place for the 22,000 lb. Grand Slam bomb. All properly perked of course. Even I think the nuke idea, although neat in some respects, is not workable. It would have to be perked to satellite level. You've brought up some interesting limitations to make it work in the game, but you've overlooked a couple of things.
First, the non-bomber crowd would have kittens. All over the place. Not your friendly, fuzzy, cute type of kitten, but little primal balls of hells fury from the depths of …. you get the idea. There would be such uproar, we'd never here the end of it and I'm not prepared to say it wouldn't be justified.
Second, the bomber would rarely, if ever, make it to target. You'd have every fighter in the game after it to take it out on a priority basis. ”Lone B-29 at high altitude? Might be a nuke jockey. Let's get him." Additionally, the nuke carrying B-29 was largely defenseless. The ones that were fitted to carry the nuke had all their guns, but the tail guns, removed. So….easily spotted and easily shot down. There go your massive perk points.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
First, the non-bomber crowd would have kittens. All over the place. Not your friendly, fuzzy, cute type of kitten, but little primal balls of hells fury from the depths of …. you get the idea. There would be such uproar, we'd never here the end of it and I'm not prepared to say it wouldn't be justified.
Second, the bomber would rarely, if ever, make it to target. You'd have every fighter in the game after it to take it out on a priority basis. ”Lone B-29 at high altitude? Might be a nuke jockey. Let's get him." Additionally, the nuke carrying B-29 was largely defenseless. The ones that were fitted to carry the nuke had all their guns, but the tail guns, removed. So….easily spotted and easily shot down. There go your massive perk points.
Well...you wouldn't want it to be an easy thing to do, would you? The risks ought to be in proportion to the reward. Furthermore, it should be a rather rare event that somebody would even try it yet it ought to not be totally impossible to succeed either. I also don't think the bombs effect should be the "end of the world" and not pissoff the fighter jocks. Perhaps this discussion will help develop a working idea.
-
Not to mention all your country men that are in the blast area flyiny or egadged in GV operations.If kill shooter is off thier dead meat,if it's on then you die and they loose ant targets they where fighting. So it's a lose/lose situation.either you die from kill shooter,or from your own blast,or the swarms of enemy fighters that are going to be on you like white on rice.
Or they would go on one way missions to pork all the ord on all your bases rendering all bomers usless(NO ORD=NO BOMBS= NO BOMBER MISSION).
-
Originally posted by TyrNM
Well...you wouldn't want it to be an easy thing to do, would you? The risks ought to be in proportion to the reward. Furthermore, it should be a rather rare event that somebody would even try it yet it ought to not be totally impossible to succeed either. I also don't think the bombs effect should be the "end of the world" and not pissoff the fighter jocks. Perhaps this discussion will help develop a working idea.
:) Only two were ever dropped and those ended the war. Look at the opposition to the B-29. There were thousands of them by wars end. Up to a thousand were used in one mission. Still the AH community of non-bombers vigorously oppose its inclusion into the game. How would you ever get them and HTC to accept a nuke? It's not going to happen. Right now the nuke idea is one reason they offer for not including the B-29, even though they know the nuke will never happen. It's used as a way of making it seem absurd to include the B-29.
-
Originally posted by gear
Not to mention all your country men that are in the blast area flyiny or egadged in GV operations.If kill shooter is off thier dead meat,if it's on then you die and they loose ant targets they where fighting. So it's a lose/lose situation.either you die from kill shooter,or from your own blast,or the swarms of enemy fighters that are going to be on you like white on rice.
Or they would go on one way missions to pork all the ord on all your bases rendering all bomers usless(NO ORD=NO BOMBS= NO BOMBER MISSION).
I've been told friendly's cannot be damaged by bombs. Is my information in error?
-
Originally posted by gear
Not to mention all your country men that are in the blast area flyiny or egadged in GV operations.If kill shooter is off thier dead meat,if it's on then you die and they loose ant targets they where fighting. So it's a lose/lose situation.either you die from kill shooter,or from your own blast,or the swarms of enemy fighters that are going to be on you like white on rice.
Or they would go on one way missions to pork all the ord on all your bases rendering all bomers usless(NO ORD=NO BOMBS= NO BOMBER MISSION).
All valid points. How about offering a suggestion? Perhaps your entire country must approve of your attack. Not everyone would have to vote. Just a single Nah vote vetos your mission - even before you take off.
I'll admit it. The entire concept doesn't really work in the MA. Still....I wonder?
-
Yes they can if kill shooter is off, they die.
If nukes where in the game the map would look like this.
(http://imagehost.bizhat.com/users/6792/map.bmp)
-
cmon people do we really want this. if we get nukes we dont know how 2 drop em. Maj. Tibets was instructed that wen he dropen the bomb, he had to do it ona turnin dive so the blast wouldnt get him. and he was flyin at like 35 000ft. we dont have any experiance and whoes gonna teach us. sounds like a big waste of perks to me
-
Originally posted by the Lazy ace
cmon people do we really want this. if we get nukes we dont know how 2 drop em. Maj. Tibets was instructed that wen he dropen the bomb, he had to do it ona turnin dive so the blast wouldnt get him. and he was flyin at like 35 000ft. we dont have any experiance and whoes gonna teach us. sounds like a big waste of perks to me
-
Turning off kill shooter is about as likely as HTC including a nuke in the game.
As far as suggestions go, I've already offered mine. Forget about it. We're not going to get it and it just derails requests for the B-29. Concentrate on getting the bomber. That's, at least, achievable.
-
(http://img358.imageshack.us/img358/1084/map3nu.png)
-
AlL Ur N0OK3s R b3LonG 2 mE!#$@$#@
-
Originally posted by SuperDud
AlL Ur N0OK3s R b3LonG 2 mE!#$@$#@
Neutering. An idea whose time didn't come soon enough. This message brought to you by ChopSaw Protocol, Ltd., purveyors of fine protocol, syntax and style since whenever we started. Find us on the web and win a prize.
-
I'll bet we're more likely to make a case for a perked 11-ton Grand Slam bomb than a nuke.
Here's a question...the Grand Slam family of bombs was a British creation, and was employed by them during the war.
Which British bomber was employed to deliver these party favors? Our Lancs can't carry 22K lbs, so what was it really? I don't remember anymore.
In any event, I'd still want to carry it in a B-29, given a choice.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
I'll bet we're more likely to make a case for a perked 11-ton Grand Slam bomb than a nuke.
Here's a question...the Grand Slam family of bombs was a British creation, and was employed by them during the war.
Which British bomber was employed to deliver these party favors? Our Lancs can't carry 22K lbs, so what was it really? I don't remember anymore.
In any event, I'd still want to carry it in a B-29, given a choice.
Naturally I agree. The 22,000 lb. Grand Slam is far more likely than a nuke.
While the real Lancaster's typical load was 14,000 lbs., it could carry up to 22,000 lbs. and was the aircraft which carried the Grand Slam.
I'm with you on the B-29 comment.
-
I can see the B-29 and the Grand Slam both being items we could use. I can see them being perked, but please forget about the nuke. As it stands now, there is really nothing to spend the perk points on. The 234 is worthless, so really we have nothing to use the massive amount of perks on. This would be a good way to use them. But, can you see the B-29 being perked as the 262 and then X 3? That could put people back to 0 fast. But with the 262, it can put the fighters back to 0 fast also.
On the other hand, what would we use all those bombs for? HQ? We still need to update the strat system. Without that, it would only piss a lot of people off with taking out FHs over a front. The guns would be nice with it already calculating for dropage with the new recoil in place. Unless that would not be put in.
-
I don't thnk we should have it lets go with a Axis bomber. We don't need it because the Lancaster does enough damage. Just a few minutes ago I had a Lancaster take out the 2 fhs, vh, radar, ord, and troops.
-
Originally posted by Goomba
I'll bet we're more likely to make a case for a perked 11-ton Grand Slam bomb than a nuke.
Here's a question...the Grand Slam family of bombs was a British creation, and was employed by them during the war.
Which British bomber was employed to deliver these party favors? Our Lancs can't carry 22K lbs, so what was it really? I don't remember anymore.
In any event, I'd still want to carry it in a B-29, given a choice.
No, the Lanc was the ONLY Bomber that carried this type of Ordnance. If implmented, again (from another thread) let the Lancs roll from 5 sectors back to get alt.
Karaya
-
My question is this. Why is the Nuke always desired, when from March 9-10, 1945, the Tokyo Fire Raids killed more Japanese with Incinderary bombs, than the Nuke at Hiroshima?
Karaya
-
Originally posted by 68slayr
I don't thnk we should have it lets go with a Axis bomber. We don't need it because the Lancaster does enough damage. Just a few minutes ago I had a Lancaster take out the 2 fhs, vh, radar, ord, and troops.
The problem with the Lanc isn't its payload so much, it's the defensive guns. No ventral protection at all, .303's on top and front and 50's on the tail but with a small amount of ammo (670 rounds). Be nice to have the extra bomb capacity too.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
No, the Lanc was the ONLY Bomber that carried this type of Ordnance. If implmented, again (from another thread) let the Lancs roll from 5 sectors back to get alt.
I should think they'd have to with that kind of load.
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
The problem with the Lanc isn't its payload so much, it's the defensive guns. No ventral protection at all, .303's on top and front and 50's on the tail but with a small amount of ammo (670 rounds). Be nice to have the extra bomb capacity too.
But that was the weakest point of the Lanc in WWII. It didn't take long for the Luftwaffe to exploit this.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
My question is this. Why is the Nuke always desired, when from March 9-10, 1945, the Tokyo Fire Raids killed more Japanese with Incinderary bombs, than the Nuke at Hiroshima?
I don't think it is always desired. I don't desire it, Gato doesn't desire it and I don't think anyone else seriously desires it. The desire is for the B-29, not the nuke.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
But that was the weakest point of the Lanc in WWII. It didn't take long for the Luftwaffe to exploit this.
Yep. That's why I rarely fly it. Too easy for some guy to get under you, nose up and fill ya full of lead. I should think the Hurricane would excell at it with it's turning ability and cannons.:)
-
Originally posted by ChopSaw
I don't think it is always desired. I don't desire it, Gato doesn't desire it and I don't think anyone else seriously desires it. The desire is for the B-29, not the nuke.
Discussing the B-29 without "mentioning the nuke" is like taking sand to the beach.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Discussing the B-29 without "mentioning the nuke" is like taking sand to the beach.
It may get "mentioned", but I doubt anyone seriously wants it. As you pointed out, the B-29 was used far more for other things than nukes. Nukes were significant, but hardly common usage of the plane. Also, I can't really see a scenario in MA that would allow nukes. I can see the B-29 there.
-
And yet, every time I come across these buffs with "Absolutely no ventral protection" and I come in at exteme speeds, pull up and fly up on their belly, I STILL end up pilot wounded, smoking from the engine and with big gaping holes in my wings. :p
Anyway, I think those nasty incendiary bombs would be a cool addition, especially against factories/towns
-
Originally posted by Saxman
And yet, every time I come across these buffs with "Absolutely no ventral protection" and I come in at exteme speeds, pull up and fly up on their belly, I STILL end up pilot wounded, smoking from the engine and with big gaping holes in my wings. :p
Anyway, I think those nasty incendiary bombs would be a cool addition, especially against factories/towns
I can't think of why that would happen unless you don't stay under the bomber. You might ask Masherbrum about it. He's indicated to me in the past that he uses the technique with success.
Yeah, the incendiary bombs would be cool. I think the only problem with them might be they'd kill frame rates. Especially if you dropped as many as a B-29 can carry.
-
yeah a lot of fire in 1 places drops my fps from 50 to about 10
-
Originally posted by Saxman
And yet, every time I come across these buffs with "Absolutely no ventral protection" and I come in at exteme speeds, pull up and fly up on their belly, I STILL end up pilot wounded, smoking from the engine and with big gaping holes in my wings. :p
Anyway, I think those nasty incendiary bombs would be a cool addition, especially against factories/towns
You are going too fast and the majority of spent ammunition is hitting the Oxygen molecules. You need to find the proper balance of going slow enough NOT to die, fast enough to get the maximum amount of hits.
Karaya
-
actuly b-17 drop the nuke those planes hard to fly but they hold more bomb i good at flying them i would like to have b-29 cus they should have all planes is ww2
-
:huh :huh :huh :huh
-
Originally posted by kdog1234
actuly b-17 drop the nuke those planes hard to fly but they hold more bomb i good at flying them i would like to have b-29 cus they should have all planes is ww2
:lol :rofl :huh :O
-
Originally posted by kdog1234
actuly b-17 drop the nuke those planes hard to fly but they hold more bomb i good at flying them i would like to have b-29 cus they should have all planes is ww2
Who sold this guy that copy of "Hooked On Ebonics"?
-
dayam kdog ... how old are you???
-
even if they did add b29 i still prefer b17
-
why WOULD you prefer the b17? less guns way less bombs ( b17 = 6000 lb; b29= 20,000 lbs) what would you pick ?:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by kdog1234
actuly b-17 drop the nuke those planes hard to fly but they hold more bomb i good at flying them i would like to have b-29 cus they should have all planes is ww2
Better stay awake in history class. :rofl
-
Originally posted by kdog1234
actuly b-17 drop the nuke those planes hard to fly but they hold more bomb i good at flying them i would like to have b-29 cus they should have all planes is ww2
I agree.
Originally posted by kdog1234
even if they did add b29 i still prefer b17
I also agree.
-
b29 needs to have incedairy bombs before we think about atomic bombs. would be alot easier to just burn down a town. With the pay load if the b29 was to com to the game it might hav to be perked. A set of 3 would pound a base imagine 4 5 sets of 3 that scary.
-
I agree, just because the B-29 could carry a nuke, doesn't mean it SHOULD carry one.
Adding a nuke would be the same as adding German's secret weapons
-
-
Nookie Nookie Nookieeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
to put a atom bomb(nuclear didnt come out till later) it would completly change the way the game is played. HTC would probably make it retarded hard to get one if they even put it in. It would be tooo much of a pain in the bellybutton to make it fit in the game play. The b29 was a powerful bomber without the nuke and i think all you guys are forgeting that. Look at the b52, it was intended to drop the nuclear bomb but never did. The thing still rains terror on wat ever it flys over till this day. Dont forget that b9 droped incedairys and burned down 20 something citys in japan. Those attacks killed way more people then the atom bombs.
To have the atom bomb htc would have to regulate it to the point where there might be a 25% chance that 1 is dropped on each map. You would have to make it a group purchase and take x amount of perk points from a mass amount of players. Then only allow one every x amount of hours. I think it would be a pain in the bellybutton to add it. Theres more things that the game needs before you consider the atom bomb. Like the b29 it self.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
Dont forget that b9 droped incedairys and burned down 20 something citys in japan. Those attacks killed way more people then the atom bombs.
umm... NO!
Atom bombs killed more people then you think. Don't forget about those millions of people who suffered radiation posioning and died becuase of those atomb bombs.
Only better then an Atom bomb is a Hydrogen Bomb.
-
it dont take a master mind to noe that. You can argue that the atom bomb did alot more then kill people but thats a different post all together.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
it dont take a master mind to noe that.
So either you're just going against your previous post or you don't know what your talking about.
-
The incendiary attacks caused more square miles of damage & killed more people outright than the atomic attacks did. But isn't that a little off topic? I for one would like to see every vehicle & weapon used in WWII incorporated into a game but it isn't going to happen with AHII. It's too complex a task & would create a game that was too complex to enjoy in the AHII framework. So; that leaves the higher ups in the position to decide what to add & what not to add for a good balance of playability & consumer enjoyment vs. profit & loss; they have to draw a line somewhere don't they? I for one would not mind the B-29 in this particular game if atomic weapons were not in the equation (sp?); in my opinion it wouldn't be long before the maps shown earlier did happen & people would get angry & leave & that just wouldn't be good for HTC. I for one want them to prosper as a company & continue to develop better fun for me.
So I say, perked B-29's would be ok for me as a paying customer.
But atomic weapons would be a horrible addition to it's payload.
-
Originally posted by MobiusAC
So either you're just going against your previous post or you don't know what your talking about.
Reading is fun aint it, if you pay attention to wat you read you dont hav to ask many questions.
Brenjen sumed it up perfectly. Ur talking about the effects of the a bomb after it was droped. Im pretty sure htc isnt going to have your pilot develope cancer. A perked b29 would do the game good. Just load it up with regular bombs. Picking the a bomb in the game is a pain in the ass.
-
Originally posted by bkbandit
Reading is fun aint it, if you pay attention to wat you read you dont hav to ask many questions.
Brenjen sumed it up perfectly. Ur talking about the effects of the a bomb after it was droped. Im pretty sure htc isnt going to have your pilot develope cancer. A perked b29 would do the game good. Just load it up with regular bombs. Picking the a bomb in the game is a pain in the ass.
I am going to drop this because you make no sense. You would come across sounding like an intelligence person; if you would take the time to spell check your responses. Maybe if you read what I wrote you would understand.
I never verbally or wrote out in text requesting for HiTech to add the atomic bomb to Aces High II.
Originally posted by bkbandit
Those attacks killed way more people then the atom bombs.
The incendiary attacks had about 100,000 more Japanese civilians that were killed, than died in the Hiroshima atomic bombing. You clearly stated that more people died from both Hiroshima's atomic bombing and Nagasaki's atomic bombing. Apparently that is not true based on historical facts.
Oh, and I agree with Brenjen on the statement that it would be nice to have HiTech incorporate every vehicle and weapon used in World War II.