Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Easyscor on November 15, 2007, 01:13:05 PM
-
;)
How about a screen shot? :D
-
(http://mysite.freeserve.com/zensamurai/he111_3_copy.jpg)
:cool:
-
they are releasing it with the B-29 in about two weeks
-
P-39, B-29, and CT all coming out in 2 weeks? What a deal!
-
its christmas come early!
yayy!!!!!!
-
:rofl
He obviously doesn't know. I betcha he's telling all his friends and getting the classic response, "LOL!"
-
Originally posted by Latrobe
P-39, B-29, and CT all coming out in 2 weeks? What a deal!
Oh boy oh boy oh boy!!!:D
-
Originally posted by Denholm
:rofl
He obviously doesn't know. I betcha he's telling all his friends and getting the classic response, "LOL!"
:lol :lol
-
It is almost ready ;)
(http://www.virtualpilots.fi/LLv34/kuvat/BWinAH.jpg)
-
I must know how ya did that... it looks photoshoped... and the font isn't right either.
It looks like an F4F with a photoshoped skin and such added.
Thats my final conclusion, now can I get a cookie?
Regards,
Subway
-
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a new hq smasher and can out run most fighters at 30000:D
my 100 post
-
Originally posted by splitatom
yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a new hq smasher and can out run most fighters at 30000:D
my 100 post
Your kiddin me right???
Wow,
Subway
-
Originally posted by BlauK
It is almost ready ;)
Nicely done, sir! <>
-
no but it could pull 340 something at 30000 feet:aok what in the world is ct and can they add napalm to the game :furious
-
Originally posted by splitatom
what in the world is ct
Brief overview of CT (http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157903)
-
I looks like a brewster buffalo, known as the worst Naval fighter in US history, and reportedly no less than Jimmy Thatch said "Any commander sending the Buffalo into combat should report the pilot as missing as soon as it leaves the ground."
-
Originally posted by stephen
I looks like a brewster buffalo, known as the worst Naval fighter in US history, and reportedly no less than Jimmy Thatch said "Any commander sending the Buffalo into combat should report the pilot as missing as soon as it leaves the ground."
Patiently waiting for the Finns to give the lad some history.
-
Did the Finns mount anything more than 4 .50's on theres?
-
Yes, finns were mounted behind the gunsight.
-
:rofl Yeah, I noticed the clipboard.
:p BlauK.
:) It's about the P-39 folks, but I wouldn't turn the buffalo down either.
-
Originally posted by stephen
I looks like a brewster buffalo, known as the worst Naval fighter in US history, and reportedly no less than Jimmy Thatch said "Any commander sending the Buffalo into combat should report the pilot as missing as soon as it leaves the ground."
It's all a question of having the right horse for the right course. Both the Brewster and the P-39 performed admirably when employed correctly and against planes other then the zeke. Both the Finns and the Russians were a bit more pragmatic then we (US) were. It should also be noted that the Buffalo had the best K/D of the war 26/1. As a side note its also interesting that the plane that losat out to the buffalo (the P-36) also did admirably well in foreign service scoring 190 victories in finnish service alone. The export version (hawk 75) did very well in battles over france and were credited with the 1st two kills of 109's over france. Overall french claims were 230 kills for only 29 losses. While the victory total is obviously overstated it sould be noted that a high % of german losses were to the hawk with Molders and many other future expertian hitting the silk for the 1st time at the hands of the hawk.
-
Ahh.. true. Curtiss Hawk would be a nice addition to the plane set :)
But, then again, lots of early war planes should be added to make it interesting.. They all need their contemporary adversaries.
-
the wildcat also lost out in a fly-off with the early buffalo, but it would to me seem more survivable in the MA that that plane....earlywar great , but its a dog....
Bet itll make a better hanger queen that the 202.
-
I THINK IM DONA PEE IN MY PAINTS
-
So if the B-29 is comeing lets see it
-
Originally posted by DEAR98
So if the B-29 is comeing lets see it
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/b29.jpg):noid :noid
-
Originally posted by stephen
I looks like a brewster buffalo, known as the worst Naval fighter in US history, and reportedly no less than Jimmy Thatch said "Any commander sending the Buffalo into combat should report the pilot as missing as soon as it leaves the ground."
All the rumors are false - I have the inside track, and HTC will probably kill me for letting the cat out of the bag - but... in two weeks, we will be getting the redoubtable Dornier Do 335 !
(http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee246/fpjames/arrow1.jpg)
(http://i230.photobucket.com/albums/ee246/fpjames/arrow2.jpg)
Shamroc :O
-
1st of al MAN THAT WOULD ROCK!!!, second of all how in heck are you guys doing those photos?:(
-
CT alpha.
http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=186703
:noid :noid
-
OMG DA B-29 SHALL RULE AAH
-
^ Doesn't know. ^
-
Originally posted by Bronk
(http://i114.photobucket.com/albums/n277/1bronk1/b29.jpg):noid :noid
Great screenshot Bronk (if were only true) The 2 week thing is a hoot!
Wife: Not tonite honey... tomorrow
:lol
-
I hope to god that if the B-29 is added its only to the high alt interception form of the game and NOT the main areanas.
However feel free to add the buffalo, peashooter, p39 and He-111 to the MA's so we have something new :P
-
Originally posted by Relorian
I hope to god that if the B-29 is added its only to the high alt interception form of the game and NOT the main areanas.
However feel free to add the buffalo, peashooter, p39 and He-111 to the MA's so we have something new :P
And add to the list of MA available aircraft that nobody flies?
-
Early War arena my friend, midwar too.
And Id fly it in the MA just like i do the A6M, P40, P-51b, F4U-1...
Frankly ANYTHING and everything would be better than adding the b-29 into the areans. Im already tired of hearing noobs chant "We want a nuke". Plus there are alot of other more signifigant aircraft from ww2 that need to go in BEFORE the b-29 is even thought of to go in.
-
Originally posted by Relorian
Early War arena my friend, midwar too.
And Id fly it in the MA just like i do the A6M, P40, P-51b, F4U-1...
Frankly ANYTHING and everything would be better than adding the b-29 into the areans. Im already tired of hearing noobs chant "We want a nuke". Plus there are alot of other more signifigant aircraft from ww2 that need to go in BEFORE the b-29 is even thought of to go in.
How many are usually in EW? 20? 30? 40?
Its not so much the 29 its the fact we only have 1 perk bomber. Which is not fair. Of course one could also argue the B-29 made a larger impact in the war then the buffalo, P-39, and 111 put together. And no Im not including nukes. We dont need nukes and I never heard anyone seriously ask for them. And im getting tired of people getting called a "nuke wanting noob" everytime they ask for the B-29.
What other left out aircraft could possibly be more significant then the B-29? The Brewster Buffalo?:lol Talk about a hangar queen in waiting.
I'd gladly trade the B-29 for an A-26 and a TU-2. I got no problem with that. But the P-39 is just a P-40 in another name and unless your one of the 10 in early war whos going to fly it?
Ive seen a P-40 in the air once. The commies stuck a 37mm on the 39 so I guess we can then call it a slower Yak 9U.
I dont care what they do as long as they supply another perk bomber.
-
Its not so much the 29 its the fact we only have 1 perk bomber. Which is not fair. Of course one could also argue the B-29 made a larger impact in the war then the buffalo, P-39, and 111 put together.
What other left out aircraft could possibly be more significant then the B-29? The Brewster Buffalo?
I'd gladly trade the B-29 for an A-26 and a TU-2. I got no problem with that. But the P-39 is just a P-40 in another name and unless your one of the 10 in early war whos going to fly it
What other left out aircraft could possibly be more significant then the B-29? The Brewster Buffalo?
I'd gladly trade the B-29 for an A-26 and a TU-2. I got no problem with that. But the P-39 is just a P-40 in another name and unless your one of the 10 in early war whos going to fly it?
So i guess you dont mind discounting a plane we made huge numbers of and sent to russia for lend/lease and a german bomber that played a large part in the war in favor of a plane that came into the war late in the game and that is designed for an altitude that you cannot attain in this game? Laugh.
The TU-2 and HE-111 were in service LONGER than the b-29. They did more for bombing than the b-29 in my opinion. The only reason the 29 gets more props and acclaim is that it "won" the war. Yes we need more perk bombers but the b-29... oh hell no. Id rather fly a blackburn skua or a swordfish mk.1 over something that once added will be complained about due to the lack of ONE type of bomb that was only used twice.
Also I dunno what train of thought derailed in your head but calling the p-39 a p-40 with another name is just funny as all hell. I suggest you look at the p-39 and then the p-40. There are quite a few differences in the planes, the armmament and engines. The soviets used the p-39 with great effect and id gladly fly it in any arena along with any other early war fighter than use a b-29. If you want heavy bombing use the lancaster.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-39_Airacobra
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-40
-
Really? What were the differences? Performance-wise they were similiar right? Gunwise? Didnt the P-39 only have 4 0.50s? Either way they were both only effective in early war and were both outclassed by 1942. Actually 1941.
You have a right to wish for anything you want. Let me also point that out. Im not saying you cant wish for anything if you do want it.
I believe HTC doesn't have an obligation to history for including aircraft into the game because they were "lend leased", sold, or churned out like sausages.
I believe they have a obligation to provide aircraft to their $15 a month customers that these same customers will actually fly.
How often do you fly the P-40? Or an aircraft with similar performance? How often do you even see them in the air? What does the P-39 offer that will make it any different? If I remember right they both used the same engine anyways right? And why would anyone jump into the P-39 with a 37 mm cannon when they can jump into the Yak 9T instead? Which is almost as fast an armed almost the same.
BTW I was right. Both the 40 and 39 used the Allison 1710. Nothing "de-railed in my head" and if you cant have an adult conversation then I'll leave you to your fantasies.
The Fairey Swordfish was in the war to. Is AH required to include that piece of crap?
-
The swordfish was far beyond a "Piece of crap" but it got the job done. The British using those outdated planes helped to knock out the Bismark.
The P-39 and P-40 may have used the same engine but they were unique aircraft and being that it was a hugely used plane, it should be honestly included. Its faster than the Yak, carried more guns than the yak (4x.50 cal, 1x 37 or 20mm cannon) and had enough models including a naval version. I also think it would make a better addition than the B-29. We do NOT need another american bomber at all plus it would carry more ord than the Lancaster, rendering it useless. Lancasters max bombload in game is 14 1k bombs. The B-29's max load was 20k bombs. Infact it would render most other bombers useless other t
Its been voted on by the users and while it lost out to the B-25, it still did fairly well.
As for flying the P-40... I fly one frequently. I see them frequently as well on the MA's. They fare well in combat if you know how to fly em. Most of the time its the P-40E but ive also seen the other version more these days.
Id write more but Im about to pass out on my keyboard.
-
The pieces of crap are fun to fight with when the opponent also has a piece of crap.
Rich here seems to suggest that only the fastest, best armed and most maneuverable planes are worth something. What is the difference when the opponent has a similar plane at MA anyways? Go Cart races can be just as fun as (even often more fun than) Indy car races. This means that early war fights can be great.. heck the WW1 fights I used to fly were really something.
But, let's all wish for F-16!!!.. then we all would have fun :p
My point is that adding one super plane throws others of the same category to trash. Adding a weaker plane to the set adds strength and power to all the existing better planes.
What "this game needs" at the moment is NOT another Ami bomber. There are plenty already. IMO it needs to fill the biggest gaps in the plane set regarding the whole WW2 air war. It need more different kinds of opponents to shoot down for the lacking eras. Many of us already have our favorites to fly in anyways.
Thus, IMO, one creates more "hangar queens" by adding a new super plane than by adding weaker planes, which some of us enjoy as bigger challenges, and which add variety to what others can engage and shoot down with their "this is my 15$ La-7:s" or what ever they fly. ;)
-
What HTC needs is a cloning machine, so they get through whatever it is that's holding them back from releasing more planes like they used to.
-
And this would take how long to make?
-
Itll be here in 2 weeks.
-
Heres another one putting words in my mouth.
Im not "suggesting" anything. What Im saying is why introduce an airplane that nobody will fly? And why introduce early war airplanes whos performance is already duplicated by other early war airplanes already modeled?
Early war fights might be occasionly great except for the fact that almost nobody fights them. Can you imagine jumping into a swordfish? And attacking a CV?
And now your babbling about an F-16?
The B-29 would be heavily perked and would be no more disruptive then the 262. Even better, guys would actually fly it. The B-29 would infuse new interest in the strat war both in bombing and defending and would renew interest in bombers in general.
Originally posted by BlauK
The pieces of crap are fun to fight with when the opponent also has a piece of crap.
Rich here seems to suggest that only the fastest, best armed and most maneuverable planes are worth something. What is the difference when the opponent has a similar plane at MA anyways? Go Cart races can be just as fun as (even often more fun than) Indy car races. This means that early war fights can be great.. heck the WW1 fights I used to fly were really something.
But, let's all wish for F-16!!!.. then we all would have fun :p
My point is that adding one super plane throws others of the same category to trash. Adding a weaker plane to the set adds strength and power to all the existing better planes.
What "this game needs" at the moment is NOT another Ami bomber. There are plenty already. IMO it needs to fill the biggest gaps in the plane set regarding the whole WW2 air war. It need more different kinds of opponents to shoot down for the lacking eras. Many of us already have our favorites to fly in anyways.
Thus, IMO, one creates more "hangar queens" by adding a new super plane than by adding weaker planes, which some of us enjoy as bigger challenges, and which add variety to what others can engage and shoot down with their "this is my 15$ La-7:s" or what ever they fly. ;)
:
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
Really? What were the differences? Performance-wise they were similiar right? Gunwise? Didnt the P-39 only have 4 0.50s? Either way they were both only effective in early war and were both outclassed by 1942. Actually 1941.
You have a right to wish for anything you want. Let me also point that out. Im not saying you cant wish for anything if you do want it.
I believe HTC doesn't have an obligation to history for including aircraft into the game because they were "lend leased", sold, or churned out like sausages.
I believe they have a obligation to provide aircraft to their $15 a month customers that these same customers will actually fly.
How often do you fly the P-40? Or an aircraft with similar performance? How often do you even see them in the air? What does the P-39 offer that will make it any different? If I remember right they both used the same engine anyways right? And why would anyone jump into the P-39 with a 37 mm cannon when they can jump into the Yak 9T instead? Which is almost as fast an armed almost the same.
BTW I was right. Both the 40 and 39 used the Allison 1710. Nothing "de-railed in my head" and if you cant have an adult conversation then I'll leave you to your fantasies.
The Fairey Swordfish was in the war to. Is AH required to include that piece of crap?
If/when the P-39 comes it will be a suprisingly dominant plane in the MA. It's performance at lower altitudes was actually quite good and its unusual engine placement made it very nimble. The P-39 was an exceptionally good turner and at lower altitudes its overall performance is very good. The real question will be which models are chosen and what setting are used. The russians heavily used a Q model with a 1420 hp allison engine and were a bit more pragmatic regarding manifold pressure often running engines well above U.S. specs.
However even the D model will be a good MA ride. Overall the P-39 will be a more significant threat then any of the yaks we have....
-
Originally posted by Relorian
The swordfish was far beyond a "Piece of crap" but it got the job done. The British using those outdated planes helped to knock out the Bismark.
The P-39 and P-40 may have used the same engine but they were unique aircraft and being that it was a hugely used plane, it should be honestly included. Its faster than the Yak, carried more guns than the yak (4x.50 cal, 1x 37 or 20mm cannon) and had enough models including a naval version. I also think it would make a better addition than the B-29. We do NOT need another american bomber at all plus it would carry more ord than the Lancaster, rendering it useless. Lancasters max bombload in game is 14 1k bombs. The B-29's max load was 20k bombs. Infact it would render most other bombers useless other t
Its been voted on by the users and while it lost out to the B-25, it still did fairly well.
As for flying the P-40... I fly one frequently. I see them frequently as well on the MA's. They fare well in combat if you know how to fly em. Most of the time its the P-40E but ive also seen the other version more these days.
Id write more but Im about to pass out on my keyboard.
P-40 is candy in my gunsite. The B-29 SHOULD be added not because it "Won the War" but because there is no other viable perk bomber in the game. The AR234 has such a uselessly small bomb load that upping it is an exercise in futility.
So you're FOR adding an American FIGHTER (P-39)
and AGAINST adding an American BOMBER (B-29)
What kind of pretzel logic is THAT???
The Superfort would be perked heavily (IMHO) so the lanc would still have it's place... Personally I don't like much about the lancaster except it's bombload. No belly guns, small caliber guns and little ammo for the ones that ARE there, coupled with the climb rate of a Winnabago makes it a total drag to fly. Additionally the Superforts would give the Rook Alt monkeys someting to do up there besides flying figure eights over a furball.:lol
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
...How often do you fly the P-40 (Hurri Mk1 late war only)? Or an aircraft with similar performance? How often do you even see them in the air?...
It's a blast that most folks haven't even tried!! :D
There is a small but dedicated group of folks who fly "outclassed" planes in the MA. We enjoy it, so any addition of outclassed planes would be great. :)
-
*cough* He-111 *cough*
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
So you're FOR adding an American FIGHTER (P-39)
and AGAINST adding an American BOMBER (B-29)
What kind of pretzel logic is THAT???
Well, how many theaters did the 29 fly in and for how long?
Now, how about the P-39?
There is your "pretzel logic. :rolleyes:
-
WTF is so difficult about having a thread which doesn't degenerate into a partial slanging match?
I've been looking at these forums for several days now, and what really is retarded is how some (usually the more 'senior' players) seem utterly incapable of presenting, or sometimes even looking at an argument objectively. I won't be at all surprised if i get angry responses to this post, but i've seen a newer player make a decent skin for an RV-8 and be attacked for no reason by a much more experienced skinner for no reason (i forgot the names luckily).
Anyway, my point is that more senior players should not feel they have the right to bash the newer ones around.
Now that that's out of the way, i can see no reason not to introduce a heavily perked B-29 AT SOME POINT, perhaps after a few other planes have been introduced. The TU-2 sounds great as well. And whoever had said that B-29 altitudes were unattainable, i have screenshots of an Me-163 at over 40k or 50k feet. Btw, are the runways long enough for b-29s?
Sorry about the slight diversion from the topic, and for the rants (especially since this is about my 5th post), but i needed to get that out of my system.
Yossarian
-
I honestly only have 3 major issues with ever adding the B-29 to AH2.
1. Planelist
There are other planes that NEED to go in first to flesh out other countries bomber/fighter lines. Russia/Italy/Japan all need more represenitave planes before yet another american bomber goes in. We already have the B-17, B24, B25 and b26 not to mention the slew of lighter bombers. There 2 british bombers, 1 japaneese bomber and NO russian or Italian bombers at all.
2. Bombload/"The nuke" problem.
First adding in the b-29 would render most other heavy bombers useless. How many people will want to up a lancaster when they can up the B-29 that carrys 6k more bombs, climbs faster and has more defensiave armament? Whos going to want to up the lesser bombers after that? It would virtually make all other bombers hangerqueens for all but the newest players who cant afford the perks (anyone whos been around even 3 months can have tons of perks). Plus there is the problem of all the people who will then demand the "nuke" be put into the game. Never mind that it would ruin gameplay or that its too large for the current arenas... they would whine and whine and whine like they currently are only more so because the plane would be in the game.
3. the "B-29 Stuka".
For all those who think its already bad with lank-stuka's just ponder what a plane armed with tons of .50 cal machineguns and 20k bombs can do to your CV. Of course the "easy" solution is to take away the capability to glide bomb or bomb outside of the bombsight view but thats a flawed fix. Still though, how many people would whine like babies when that "Heavily perked" bomber with its 2 drones comes glidebombing the cv with 20 1k bombs or 2 10k bombs (If they were added, I know theres supposedly a 4k limit but were going with "wishes" here) or 10 2k bombs or 5 4k bombs?
Maybe after they flesh out the plane lines, add in more deserving bombers/fighters/GV's and then maybe even add some lesser deserving planes like other cargo/troop drop planes, then Id be OK with them adding in something that i honestly believe will ruin gameplay. Hell, id rather even see the Do 335 Pfeil before the B-29.
-
Originally posted by Relorian
I honestly only have 3 major issues with ever adding the B-29 to AH2.
1. Planelist
There are other planes that NEED to go in first to flesh out other countries bomber/fighter lines. Russia/Italy/Japan all need more represenitave planes before yet another american bomber goes in. We already have the B-17, B24, B25 and b26 not to mention the slew of lighter bombers. There 2 british bombers, 1 japaneese bomber and NO russian or Italian bombers at all.
2. Bombload/"The nuke" problem.
First adding in the b-29 would render most other heavy bombers useless. How many people will want to up a lancaster when they can up the B-29 that carrys 6k more bombs, climbs faster and has more defensiave armament? Whos going to want to up the lesser bombers after that? It would virtually make all other bombers hangerqueens for all but the newest players who cant afford the perks (anyone whos been around even 3 months can have tons of perks). Plus there is the problem of all the people who will then demand the "nuke" be put into the game. Never mind that it would ruin gameplay or that its too large for the current arenas... they would whine and whine and whine like they currently are only more so because the plane would be in the game.
3. the "B-29 Stuka".
For all those who think its already bad with lank-stuka's just ponder what a plane armed with tons of .50 cal machineguns and 20k bombs can do to your CV. Of course the "easy" solution is to take away the capability to glide bomb or bomb outside of the bombsight view but thats a flawed fix. Still though, how many people would whine like babies when that "Heavily perked" bomber with its 2 drones comes glidebombing the cv with 20 1k bombs or 2 10k bombs (If they were added, I know theres supposedly a 4k limit but were going with "wishes" here) or 10 2k bombs or 5 4k bombs?
Maybe after they flesh out the plane lines, add in more deserving bombers/fighters/GV's and then maybe even add some lesser deserving planes like other cargo/troop drop planes, then Id be OK with them adding in something that i honestly believe will ruin gameplay. Hell, id rather even see the Do 335 Pfeil before the B-29.
1. Planelist:
I can't think of any other suitable perked bombers
2. Bombload/nuke thing
Surely the B-29 could be given such a heavy perk price as to lessen its use
and perhaps the price of the Me163 should be lowered to permit interception. Also, any noob who managed to get their hands on a 163 would prbbly crash it within a minute or two.
3. I can't really think of a solution, so good point.
And I agree with your last paragraph, but please see my 1st point.
-
1: C47 with more troops, or Me323 with GV drop, or even more troops, exotic bomber perk loadouts like the Il2 carried, or even those 37mm Stuka guns, etc.
2: If the perk price is large enough, making the plane rare enough, the time and effort it took to produce the B29 will have been wasted. This wasn't an issue with the 262 because it was a lot more vital to the planeset.
-
moot, I agree with number 1, but can you please explain how the B-29 would be so different from the Me-262, as in the B-29 would probably be as heavily perked as the 262, so that a limited number of people would actually fly it. also, whilst I recognise that the 262 is very important to the game as the only jet fighter, surely the B-29 is also significant in the technology it had (not to mention its infamous role in ending the war).
Yossarian
-
That's the thing, for most of WWII, the B29 wasn't so important. The 262 was.
-
The Me 262 airframe first flew on 18 April 1941, and it first flew powered only by jets on 18 April 1942. It didn't see action until the beginning of 1944, only about six months before the B-29 flew its first combat missions.
Yossarian
-
And the B29 made how much difference when it showed up?
The 262 was one of the LW's, and Germany's, last hopes... What did the B29 do that makes it so essential to the AH planeset?
-
It was the plane that devastated several Japanese cities, and also brought the war in the Pacific to an end.
-
thats not counting hiroshima and nagasaki, right?
-
I'm talking about all the cities that were destroyed both with that f***ed up carpet bombing residential areas with incendiaries at low level, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
-
Originally posted by Yossarian
I'm talking about all the cities that were destroyed both with that f***ed up carpet bombing residential areas with incendiaries at low level, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Everything but the dropping of the atom bombs could have been done with existing B17's and B24's if B29's would not have become available. They didnt really change anything.
Originally posted by Rich46yo
And add to the list of MA available aircraft that nobody flies?
First of all, the MA=weakest link. No where near as fun as FSO or scenarios, which should be considered before 'what will be flown in the MA's. If you want to use the 'it wont be used in the MA' logic, we dont need anything else whatsoever, because LA's, Spits, and NIKI's will be flown more than anything else. BTW, Ive been seeing a lot of B25H's and even C's, for those who said it would become a hangar queen.
Oh, and Id definately use the He-111. Much better defensive armament than the Ju-88. And if all of you want a perked bomber....
Ju. 87G-2!
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Everything but the dropping of the atom bombs could have been done with existing B17's and B24's if B29's would not have become available. They didnt really change anything. [/B]
one problem with the b 17 and 24 they couldnt fly to tokyo and back like the b 29 could
-
Originally posted by stephen
I looks like a brewster buffalo, known as the worst Naval fighter in US history, and reportedly no less than Jimmy Thatch said "Any commander sending the Buffalo into combat should report the pilot as missing as soon as it leaves the ground."
i belive the buffalo had the first air to air kill during ww2 flown by a fighter piolet in the us army/navy not sure on that but it was at pearl harbor (that does not inclued the fighters flown by americans in other countrys aka flying tigers, americans in the raf and so on)
-
Originally posted by moot
That's the thing, for most of WWII, the B29 wasn't so important. The 262 was.
The 262 appeared in such small numbers, and in an airforce under such severe stress, that it had a virtually nil impact on the war.
We destroyed an entire country with the B-29. Also we used them effectively against Japanese targets in China and S/E Asia. Eventually over 2,700 B-29s were built. The 3 squadrons of the 9'th HBG themselves flew over 2,000 sorties in 6 mos of 1945 alone.
While the B-29 was activated for service beginning in April 1944, basing in India, the first actual attack using them was in June 1944 when a total of 98 29s launched against Jap rail targets in Thailand. Operation Matterhorn alone accounted for over 3,000 sorties on 49 separate missions.
B-29s flew over 20,000 sorties in WW-ll against Industrial, urban, transportation, and military targets. It was also used effectively to drop mines around Japanese harbors, helping strangle the Jap war machine and starve the population.
The 29 had an "actual impact on the war" so far in excess compared to the ME-262 to suggest anything else is laughable. While almost 1,400 262s were built very few of them actually saw action due to mechanical defects, a lack of pilots, and Allied success in destroying the Reich fuel industry. The Luftwaffe never had more then 200 actually flyable with pilots and gas for them. And their record was what? 150 allied aircraft shot down with 100 262s lost to enemy fire?
The 262 really had "zero" impact on the war.
-
If it hasn't hapenned so far, it's porbably not going to happen. Let It Go!!!
-
Originally posted by Rich46yo
And their record was what? 150 allied aircraft shot down with 100 262s lost to enemy fire?
the acual numbers of alied aircraft shot down was like 1500 and i dont know how many 262 were lost:mad:
-
its a shame that perk value's have less to do with war production, and everything to do with the popularity of an aircraft.
simply put the B-29 is a plane that WILL be in this game sooner or later, so all this talk is really wasted on the ears of HT and crew, that said the only way to assure its timly entry into this game is for you guys to keep up the banter.
America was a big contributer of aircraft and despite the lack of early war winners, we caught up fast,and this is the reason america is so well represented in this game and will continue to be.
We simply built so many war winning A/C B-29, A-26, P47/51/38 etc etc etc. that it would be a crime not to have them...as they made such an impact.
the german rides really fall into another catagory as after 1943 they where falling back and where hard pressed to come out with large numbers of superior A/C hence the 262 and 163's huge perk value, but admitidly they where far superior and so should be included "and are here"
I say america isnt very well represented in that the best bombersin our invintory are being left out, no other country can really say the same in this game, outside of italy and they suck anyway lol.:aok
-
Originally posted by stephen
I say america isnt very well represented in that the best bombersin our invintory are being left out, no other country can really say the same in this game, outside of italy and they suck anyway lol.:aok
Eh, what? The United States isnt very well represented in bombers?!?!? Well, we have the B17, the B24, the B25C, the B25H, the B26, the SBD, the TBM, the P38( :p )... they arent well represented?
Britain has the Lancaster... thats it...
Germany has the Ar234, the Ju-88, and the Stuka, thats it...
Japan has the Ki-67, the B5N, and the D3A, thats it...
Russia has the Il-2... thats it...
So, 5 bombers for the US, compared to an average of 2 per every other country? And Italy doesnt even have any? Wow.
Germany has the Ju87G2 left out. That would probably be the best tankbuster in the game.
Germany also has the He-111 left out, which was a very important part of the BoB and Op:Barbarossa, which, by the way, was the largest invasion of military history.
Japan has the G4M and the Judy left out.
Russia is missing two very good bombers, the Pe-2 and the Tu-2 (the Tu-2, IIRC, is faster and has a larger bombload than the B26)
Not well represented my arse.
Originally posted by Rich46yo
The 262 appeared in such small numbers, and in an airforce under such severe stress, that it had a virtually nil impact on the war.
Do you actually know the numbers of 262's made? Its around 1400 (apparantly you do, you just want to overlook the fact thats almost over half of what the 29 was produced... by a much smaller industry that was being bombed day and night...) . Thats not a lot compared to, say the 109, with 33,000, but thats still a fair amount of aircraft, considering the small time that they served.
We destroyed an entire country with the B-29. Also we used them effectively against Japanese targets in China and S/E Asia. Eventually over 2,700 B-29s were built. The 3 squadrons of the 9'th HBG themselves flew over 2,000 sorties in 6 mos of 1945 alone.
While the B-29 was activated for service beginning in April 1944, basing in India, the first actual attack using them was in June 1944 when a total of 98 29s launched against Jap rail targets in Thailand. Operation Matterhorn alone accounted for over 3,000 sorties on 49 separate missions.
B-29s flew over 20,000 sorties in WW-ll against Industrial, urban, transportation, and military targets. It was also used effectively to drop mines around Japanese harbors, helping strangle the Jap war machine and starve the population.
Fair points. Nothing to say.
The 29 had an "actual impact on the war" so far in excess compared to the ME-262 to suggest anything else is laughable. While almost 1,400 262s were built very few of them actually saw action due to mechanical defects, a lack of pilots, and Allied success in destroying the Reich fuel industry. The Luftwaffe never had more then 200 actually flyable with pilots and gas for them. And their record was what? 150 allied aircraft shot down with 100 262s lost to enemy fire?
The 262 really had "zero" impact on the war.
First. The K/D was about 5/1 (509 kills conservatively to about 100 losses).
Its easy to say the 262 'had no impact in the war', because Germany lost either way. But, from a different perspective, its still easy to say that the 29 had no impact on the war, because Japan would have lost either way.
The B29 dropped the first atom bomb. The 262 was the first jet fighter, was on of the first swept wing aircraft, and was flown by Kurt Welter, who, to this day, is still one of the highest scoring jet aces.
In summary... theres no point to arguing 'which had the bigger impact on the war', because in both cases, the impact on the Second World War is negligable. But, both had a very large impact after the war, and that is why they are really remembered.
And, as a follow-up-
The He-111 had a bigger impact on the war than either.
The P-39 had a bigger impact on the war than either.
The Tu-2 had a bigger impact on the war than either.
The Yak-1 had a bigger impact on the war than either.
-
As I said represented in #s? yes, represented by war winning plane types? NO....the best is given to the other country's, you said it yourself, KI-67 for japan, ju88 and arado234 for germany, and lancaster for england, all represent the best that that particular country could do by wars end, not so in the american camp, our best bomber is gathering dust by the wayside, while people scream "it isnt a fair plane in the MA!", and to think of it, it isnt fair {the b29} and thats why we won the war....
So again ill say, technilogicaly american bombers are under represented in this game, accept for perhaps the b26, and 24....our best is in the hanger still, dont believe me? wait till they unleash the 29,... it'll be a whole new world :)
-
what kind of weapons? i would like to see the b29 with little boy nuke for 1k perks.
-
Originally posted by stephen
So again ill say, technilogicaly american bombers are under represented in this game, accept for perhaps the b26, and 24....our best is in the hanger still, dont believe me? wait till they unleash the 29,... it'll be a whole new world :)
The only to bombers that we dont have that I know of are the A26 and the B29. The B17 and the B24 were two of the best and most important bombers of the war, and are in game. The TBM has the most CV-launchable firepower, and a bombsite. The B25 was and is a very fast and useful mid-war bomber and ingame is a good tankbuster. All of the 'American greats' are here, IMO.
-
what about the gigant? i knw the c47 is in the game, but it is really ill-equipped if even one trooper dies. so why not develop it, that way, there is a quick way of dropping about a hundred troopres, though requiring landing (i can land a c47 in a field with hedgerows, i could put down a gigant), or you could use it for paratroopers or landing panzers. would be interesting to see how fully automated tanks reacted. Remember, the gigant was huge. it could carry armored troop carriers, tanks, even artillery pieces. if were putting in a us bomber and us fighter, and only a german experimental fighter, why not a good trooper? lets just face it, many ppl have been frustrated by the many problems with the c47, including slow drops, being targeted by many fighters (i think the me 323 gigant had a few guns on it), and at times, low power (get frustrated by the engines on the c47 requiring so much space to sped up, like speed, but takes awhile to slow down). long and short, put a gigant on ah, and fiters will either make a yellow stain in their bubble canopy, or or take it as fair game, concidering how easily the c47 s\
-
Rather have a Ju-52. Had a HUGE impact on the war (dropped paratroops for the airborne invasion of Crete, for example), and had a defensive armament (albeit a small one).
-
Originally posted by Motherland
The only to bombers that we dont have that I know of are the A26 and the B29. The B17 and the B24 were two of the best and most important bombers of the war, and are in game. The TBM has the most CV-launchable firepower, and a bombsite. The B25 was and is a very fast and useful mid-war bomber and ingame is a good tankbuster. All of the 'American greats' are here, IMO.
Do not forget the Helldiver. Better in nearly every way than the STD.
-
Originally posted by splitatom
the acual numbers of alied aircraft shot down was like 1500 and i dont know how many 262 were lost:mad:
Please post your supportive links as I am going mostly from memory. If you post a supportive link then I will research it myself. 1,500 enemy airplanes downed by 262s? I doubt it. It did have the potential to be a war winning weapon, no doubt bout that, but that still doesnt mean it actually was.
Theres no need for little angry faces. Im 50yo and at least "I" am having an adult conversation.
If you cant support your statement then Im going to bow out as this was a P-39 thread not a B-29 one.
The P-39 would probably be an interesting aircraft because AH reminds me of the air war on the eastern front due to where on the altitude table most of it is fought. Many of the late war fighters really shine up high but things are less clear cut under 12,000'.
-
Aces High is not a reenactment of WW2, its a combat sim built around WW2 aircraft. Given the parameters of the game the B-29 is pretty much useless outside of scenario's and in many ways inappropriate to general gameplay (IMO). The big difference is in bomber types, the focus should be on tactical bombers not stategic since this is really a tactical flight sim.
If/when the ground game expands and anti-tank, fixed artillary, bunkers etc come into play then the ability to have a real "tactical air war" can greatly enhance the overall game play. There is very little real use for any of the strategic bombers....
As much as I'd love to see the A-26 the reality is that the A-20 is perfectly capable of doing the same job from a US planeset perspective. I'd love to see the Judy as well as one of the russian bombers ( I know one had 2 x 20mm as well{pilot controlled}....
It's the same arguement as the GV's, you need a russian heavy tank or TD and a "stock" sherman alot more then you need a King Tiger panther of german TD....
Personally I dont think we'll see the B-29 anytime this decade...
-
Originally posted by humble
( I know one had 2 x 20mm as well{pilot controlled}....
Tu-2
Rich, the actual kill record for the 262 is 509 according to wikipedia, which sounds about right to me, but Ill try to find a better source if you wish. It also said that there were about 100 destroyed.
-
Originally posted by Motherland
Tu-2
Rich, the actual kill record for the 262 is 509 according to wikipedia, which sounds about right to me, but Ill try to find a better source if you wish. It also said that there were about 100 destroyed.
Yeah wikipedia doesnt count tho I appreciate you making the effort.
If it was indeed 509, and not the 250 I said, then the contribution it made towards the German war effort was nil. American industry alone was probably spitting out 500 airplanes an hour at the time.
Now as a perk aircraft in a combat sim the ME-262 is superb and makes a great contribution to the game. The AR-234 is also a tremendous addition and perk bomber for us bomber types.
For the record I'd rather see the TU-2 and A-26 introduced in AH more then any other aircraft. 3'rd would be the B-29. But, thats my style. I fly fast heavily gunned medium bombers towards the biggest dars on the map.
I really fail to see how the B-29 would be inappropriate to the game. I just dont understand that statement. But I guess there are members who dont like bombers and feel that they interfere with "their" gameplay. Which is pretty selfish. 90+% of the map is unused due to this tactical/furball mindset.
-
It's not a question of anyones "gameplay" per se....
I'm most likely to be found trolling around in an A-20 (which I fly strictly as a fighter)...
My questions/concerns regarding buffs are as follows...
1) you already have a very artificial system for buff gunning. given the AH realities the B-29 will be all but invulnerable.
2) There is no real strategic bombing model so almost all buff missions are somewhat artificial in nature. I think AH should limit buffs to 2 engine tactical planes outside of scenarios...
3) unrealistic formations
IRL buffs cant manuever in formation they way they do in AH. Formation flying for the heavies was very taxing and losses in both training and combat were high. The B-24 training bases in the US had losses of roughly 1 bomber & crew per day due to training mishaps.
4) easy mode bombing...
I almpst never fly buffs and I can hit stuff almost 100%. Bombing is totally s no skill proposition.
So the reality is that AH has made buffs a "lowest common denominator" endeavor that allow anyone to participate. It's the "easy mode" aspect of the game {this is not ment to take way from 999000, beefcake, solar and the others who could do it the "old fashioned way" as well}...
It's not that I'm anti buff, I'm anti what AH has done with them...
-
http://www.luftwaffe.cz/dusen.html
This was from a very quick search for a non-wikipedia source, so I'm sure a better list can be found.
If you click on the aces' names then you can see the individual kill claims. This is only a list of pilots with 5 or more kills in jets, so taking into account all pilots with 1-4 kill claims then the total is probably well over 400.
I see no reason why we shouldn't have a B-29 in the game, but I do not want to see it at the expense of other development work. As of now, many of the aircraft that historically intercepted the B-29 are not even in the game yet. Personally I'd rather see the current planes that still have the old graphics (Hellcat, Me 262, La 5 and 7, Bf 110s, Ta 152, Tempest, etc.) get updated in both appearance and, if needed, flight models.
Also, does anyone know if our runways are even long enough for a B-29 to take off and land at the sea level fields let alone fields at altitude?
-
Whats so artificial? I could say the same thing about fighters anyways. Yesterday ,for the 2nd day in a row, I shot the wing off an F-4U and the fighter stick was still able to fly it home. Earlier in the day I got shot to pieces cause I was in bomb sight mode, "which is totally unrealistic and never happened in real life.
The B-29 will probably be as invulnerable as the 262 is. There is no way you can model radar controlled guns. And the "skill" is in how you approach the target in order to drop your bombs. I spend a lot of time avoiding the conga lines to get in on the target, and to do so at the proper angle of attack. Releasing the bombs still takes timing and coordination.
What exactly is the "old fashioned way". And why would anyone still do it that way? You think dive bombing froma Jabo takes more skill?
I understand many in this game look down on Buffs drivers and the airplanes they fly. Its human nature this "elitism" thing and stems from our tribal instincts that we always have someone to look down on. This is mostly a fighter airplane game and i thin k a lot of fighter sticks have expectations that bombers should allow themselves to be shot down at the fighter sticks leisure. Funny but the ones who always vent that flying the bombers takes no skill are the same ones who never fly them their ownselves. As if flying a cartoon fighter takes more skill then a cartoon bomber?:lol
Im not against fighters per say, Im just against what AH has done with them. And it sounds like Humble has taken some thumps while flying against bombers. There are some guys who will only come in against helpless bombers and they run when first pinged a couple of times.
Originally posted by humble
It's not a question of anyones "gameplay" per se....
I'm most likely to be found trolling around in an A-20 (which I fly strictly as a fighter)...
My questions/concerns regarding buffs are as follows...
1) you already have a very artificial system for buff gunning. given the AH realities the B-29 will be all but invulnerable.
2) There is no real strategic bombing model so almost all buff missions are somewhat artificial in nature. I think AH should limit buffs to 2 engine tactical planes outside of scenarios...
3) unrealistic formations
IRL buffs cant manuever in formation they way they do in AH. Formation flying for the heavies was very taxing and losses in both training and combat were high. The B-24 training bases in the US had losses of roughly 1 bomber & crew per day due to training mishaps.
4) easy mode bombing...
I almpst never fly buffs and I can hit stuff almost 100%. Bombing is totally s no skill proposition.
So the reality is that AH has made buffs a "lowest common denominator" endeavor that allow anyone to participate. It's the "easy mode" aspect of the game {this is not ment to take way from 999000, beefcake, solar and the others who could do it the "old fashioned way" as well}...
It's not that I'm anti buff, I'm anti what AH has done with them...
-
The current calibration is basically point and click. The prior "original" calibration model was more realistic. In fact the "distain" you note is nothing other then a combination of the following...
The entire bomber experience is dumbed down now to make it the lowest denominator. Easy to gun, easy to bomb...any zipcode can bomb effectively.
As a side note I can kill any bomber in any fighter including the 202 95%+ of the time without taking damage let alone dieing regardless of pilot. Now obviously if your facing a good pilot/gunner then you may have to give up your attack at times since your positioning and speed are much critical. The higher the altitiude that more marginal many fighters capabilities are vs the 4 engine buffs in particular. Most of the time (not always) if I die to a buff it's because I'm trying to break up a bombing run.
BTW it was not uncommon for planes to RTB missing wingtips, just like buffs could absorb huge amounts of damage IRL as well as the game. Jabo attacks take far far more skill then bombing from buffs, now divebombing using buffs in really just an even dweebier form of buffing.
As for skill, the reason that buffs even exist is because learning to fly fighters well does take so much time and effort.
-
I agree that the P-39 would make a good addition to the game... With the Soviet gun package it would be a fun airplane to fly. It would be great to have the "Red Star" version as well as the US version... A "no nuke available", heavily perked B-29, HE-111, A-26 and JU-52 would be welcome additions as well. More choices=more fun...
The argument that there are to many US bomber types is simply dumb... What other country [not counting the UK] had a SUSTAINED strategic bombing offensive in WW2? the answer in NOBODY!!! Most other combatants used bombers in the CAS role. This includes Germany who was unable [due to heavy losses] to sustain it's strategic bombing of Great Britain during the BoB. Representing every fringe aircraft would be a waste of effort to model hanger queens that would be religated to EW and MW arenas that few(other than score monkeys... you know who you are :)) fly in anyway
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
The argument that there are to many US bomber types is simply dumb... What other country [not counting the UK] had a SUSTAINED strategic bombing offensive in WW2? the answer in NOBODY!!!
Lighten up, Francis. :D
-
SUSTAINED strategic bombing
I guess it explain also why there is so much US tactical bombers in AH :D
-
Yak3 remains the most heavily used mid 44 fighter yet to be added to AH....and I reckon it is the Spit 8 to the Yak9U's Spit 9.
P39N/Q would be neat to..............
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
Representing every fringe aircraft would be a waste of effort to model hanger queens that would be religated to EW and MW arenas that few(other than score monkeys... you know who you are :)) fly in anyway
There's a lot more to this game than the main arenas. All those "hangar queens" are important for use in historical scenarios, FSO, snapshots, and the other special events.
-
P-39Q, yes, add it. We need more planes in general.
B-29, sure, whatever. Add it, perk it, no nuke for it. Problem solved. Let it exist, not many people will use it up where it was known, because they want to drop their payload, not fly for an hour, just climbing.
Pe-2, yes. Very yes. Even better. Pe-3 bis. The fighter version, with 2 20mms and 2 12.7mm guns. Slightly faster than the standard Pe-2.
Tu-2, yes. It's just good. No two ways about it.
I could go on and on about aircraft I want, or just think we need. At the end of the day everyone wants planes they like. And I don't see anything wrong with that.
If it is possible, I wish that every aircraft from WW2 that fits the requirements should be added. Why? Because there is nothing wrong with that. It would give experienced MA players more choices in the MA, and would make the Snapshots/etc much better. And open up more choices.
I was reading an old Air Warrior Site a while back, and they were using the Zeros as Ki-43s.
And though Aces High is not Air Warrior, I would prefer to use Ki-43s as Ki-43s. So why not just add every plane (that fits the requirements) to the planeset? Who cares if it 'impacted the war greatly' or 'didn't actually do anything.' Just add EVERYTHING, that might actually make most of us happy.
Who cares if something is a Hanger Queen. Better to be a Hanger Queen than not an option, at least to me.
-
Originally posted by Hien
And though Aces High is not Air Warrior, I would prefer to use Ki-43s as Ki-43s. So why not just add every plane (that fits the requirements) to the planeset? Who cares if it 'impacted the war greatly' or 'didn't actually do anything.' Just add EVERYTHING, that might actually make most of us happy.
Thats not the problem. The problem is what to add first.
-
Yeah, I suppose. It's too bad the staff isn't available for multiple add ons at once.
-
Originally posted by Arlo
Lighten up, Francis. :D
Thanks for the advice... And yes you are our "Big Toe"!!!:rofl
-
Originally posted by Hien
I was reading an old Air Warrior Site a while back, and they were using the Zeros as Ki-43s.
Must have been old because I am sure the Ki43 was in AW3 by the latter years
-
Originally posted by Hien
Yeah, I suppose. It's too bad the staff isn't available for multiple add ons at once.
We have alot of talented guys in this game... So my suggestion is for HTC to use US to help model and test all of these aircraft that we all want added.
It works with skins and terrain why not aircraft? There is a skins tream, a CM staff, a terrain team... why not a new aircraft team?
We all complain about how everything is going to be "out" in 2 weeks, why not get us involved? We would then have a "vested" interest in the product and maybe we wouldn't feel like we're getting the "mushroom" treatment about upcoming improvements.
:aok
-
Originally posted by MajIssue
Thanks for the advice... And yes you are our "Big Toe"!!!:rofl
Got a mouse in your major issue (fitting) pocket? ;)
-
can we see da hole thing not just the pit?