Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: CaptMerc on December 31, 2008, 08:23:38 PM

Title: superfortress
Post by: CaptMerc on December 31, 2008, 08:23:38 PM
When are we going to get the b29? It was responsible for winning the pacific campain.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: FYB on December 31, 2008, 08:42:56 PM
When are we going to get the b29? It was responsible for winning the pacific campain.
Its been asked for, failed. Its a bad idea if we are going to not give it nuke and restrict full capacity of the bomb loadout.


-FYB


Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: fudgums on December 31, 2008, 08:56:52 PM
When are we going to get the b29? It was responsible for winning the pacific campain.

The US would have won the Pacific campaign anyway. We would of invaded Japan.

Dropping the Nukes. saved millions of lives
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: NEARY on December 31, 2008, 09:05:36 PM
What an Original idea
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Allen Rune on December 31, 2008, 09:08:03 PM
What an Original idea

Indeed.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: halo342 on December 31, 2008, 09:49:34 PM
*places search police beacon and runs like hell*
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Treize69 on December 31, 2008, 10:57:03 PM
(http://usera.imagecave.com/webloafer/please.jpg)
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Allen Rune on December 31, 2008, 11:00:22 PM
(http://usera.imagecave.com/webloafer/please.jpg)

:rofl
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: FYB on December 31, 2008, 11:07:15 PM
(http://usera.imagecave.com/webloafer/please.jpg)
:rofl :rofl :rofl

God stopped wasting his bulllets now he commands bush to do his job.

(http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/President-Bush-Eats-Kitten-1259.jpg)
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: NEARY on December 31, 2008, 11:19:27 PM
:rofl :rofl :rofl

God stopped wasting his bulllets now he commands bush to do his job.

(http://www.laughparty.com/funny-pictures/President-Bush-Eats-Kitten-1259.jpg)
That is even worse than the kitten with the gun...... :rofl
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: HighTone on December 31, 2008, 11:55:25 PM
B-29  :aok
ME-410 :aok
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: thndregg on January 01, 2009, 12:44:15 AM
When are we going to get the b29? It was responsible for winning the pacific campain.

Most of you new guys wouldn't have the patience to fly it right anyway. (Are we there, yet?) :rolleyes:
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Spikes on January 01, 2009, 01:05:12 AM
When are we going to get the b29? It was responsible for winning the pacific campain.
Actually, no. It was responsible for ENDING the war. Not winning it.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: waystin2 on January 01, 2009, 09:50:46 AM
I am all for it's addition.  Super perk the heck out of it.  Oh, and no nuclear weapons in this game ever. 
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: VansCrew1 on January 01, 2009, 10:12:12 AM
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)

WOOT
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Helm on January 01, 2009, 02:59:27 PM
When are we going to get the b29? It was responsible for winning the pacific campain.


Ok ...for the 1000th time:
  T H E   R U N W A Y S   I N    T H E   G A M E   A R E   N O T   L O N G    E N O U G H   T O    G E T   A    B 2 9    I N    T H E    A I R.

In order for us to have B29's HTC would have to redo all the airfields .....on all the maps .....thats a big job!! 

.....ask yourself:  "do you think this is really going to happen?"


Helm ...out
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: trigger2 on January 01, 2009, 03:15:12 PM
I am all for it's addition.  Super perk the heck out of it.  Oh, and no nuclear weapons in this game ever. 

Actually, no, not even that. They did as much damage as a standard napalm bomb raid... and the emperor of Japan later said, "The nukes did not lose us the war, they only helped me make up my mind."

But...

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)

And a good quote from someone was, if we get the nuke and b-29, we better have radiation...

"A16's down."
"They just dropped A36"
"Those idiots, don't they know they're gonna die from the radiation??"
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: FYB on January 01, 2009, 03:48:04 PM

Ok ...for the 1000th time:
  T H E   R U N W A Y S   I N    T H E   G A M E   A R E   N O T   L O N G    E N O U G H   T O    G E T   A    B 2 9    I N    T H E    A I R.

In order for us to have B29's HTC would have to redo all the airfields .....on all the maps .....thats a big job!! 

.....ask yourself:  "do you think this is really going to happen?"


Helm ...out
You could but you have to have a field thats 0.0k alt and no trees on either NW, NE, SW, SE . And widen the fields... Plus a dozen maybe more miles to get into the correct alt. The point is, we aren't going to get it. YET

-FYB

-FYB
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Banshee7 on January 01, 2009, 07:17:49 PM
(http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c62/Masherbrum/nookie.gif)

WOOT

classic

In order for us to have B29's HTC would have to redo all the airfields .....on all the maps .....thats a big job!! 

.....ask yourself:  "do you think this is really going to happen?"


Helm ...out

They would have to also resize the bomber hangar
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Spikes on January 01, 2009, 07:33:31 PM
Actually, no, not even that. They did as much damage as a standard napalm bomb raid... and the emperor of Japan later said, "The nukes did not lose us the war, they only helped me make up my mind."

But...

(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/alecksismeboo/n00kposter.jpg)

And a good quote from someone was, if we get the nuke and b-29, we better have radiation...

"A16's down."
"They just dropped A36"
"Those idiots, don't they know they're gonna die from the radiation??"

True. I mean, a squad of guys could flatten 5-7 airfields with a B29. 7 buff pilots and a couple Ponies for escort. Just get the 29's up to a good 25-30K...
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Banshee7 on January 01, 2009, 07:35:46 PM
True. I mean, a squad of guys could flatten 5-7 airfields with a B29. 7 buff pilots and a couple Ponies for escort. Just get the 29's up to a good 25-30K...

thats the point..as stated, very few people would have the patience to actually climb one to where it is high enough to be safe from the blast.  Heck...the pilot of the B-29 said he felt the explosion at 30k..or however high he was
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: viper215 on January 02, 2009, 10:11:26 AM
I can see the noe missions now,get to 800,drop the nuke(blow yourself p in the process),have your friend drop the tropps take the base...10 second field take max
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: CAVPFCDD on January 02, 2009, 10:14:32 AM
why do you guys even mention a nuke, it's by far the worst idea I've ever heard of.

It's a super weapon that just does not fit into this style of game play, theres no use for it...
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: StokesAk on January 02, 2009, 10:49:37 AM
Yea i wouldn't ler 999000 have a nuke then we would all die on the runway.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Enker on January 02, 2009, 02:26:12 PM
No B-29s, 999000 would kill us all. He is like the Chuck Norris of Buff Gunnery.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Banshee7 on January 02, 2009, 03:38:19 PM
I can see the noe missions now,get to 800,drop the nuke(blow yourself p in the process),have your friend drop the tropps take the base...10 second field take max

took a base in 13 seconds....my mission record so far
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Puck on January 02, 2009, 03:46:31 PM
No B-29s, 999000 would kill us all. He is like the Chuck Norris of Buff Gunnery.

PERK 999000!

My dad told me the B-29 engines always overheated on takeoff.  They'd get wheels up, open the cowlings,  then fly straight and level over the ocean until everything cooled back down after which they'd start climbing.  At random intervals the blisters would pop out and take the gun controller with them, too.  On the whole he preferred his B-24.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Banshee7 on January 02, 2009, 03:50:55 PM
B-17 = greatest allied bomber ever used in WW2.  No need for B29 when you already have the best.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Puck on January 02, 2009, 09:24:54 PM
B-17 = greatest allied bomber ever used in WW2.  No need for B29 when you already have the best.

Pfft.  Wrong.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Treize69 on January 02, 2009, 10:31:32 PM
Pfft.  Wrong.

Indeed, we all know the Blenheim pwns all.  :P
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: EagleEyes on January 03, 2009, 12:02:26 AM
Please.....

It was the B-18!! Everyone knows it!! It couldnt be used in combat because it was far too superior!


 :noid


Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Masherbrum on January 03, 2009, 12:06:40 AM
classic

They would have to also resize the bomber hangar

Perk Sheetmetal workers, Electricians, Pipefitters and Carpenters!     :rock
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Martyn on January 03, 2009, 09:36:17 AM
Indeed, we all know the Blenheim pwns all.  :P
No no no no. It was the Wellington.  :lol
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: 1pLUs44 on January 03, 2009, 10:16:43 AM
I don't see why the Superfortress isn't already in game. It doesn't even need a large perk load out, since it's still a giant, slowmoving, silver bomber. Definitely not nearly as much of a tank as the B-17 was, easy to catch on fire, I doubt it would need a perk price of any more than 20, and that's too high for the damn thing. It was able to fly at high alts and hold lots of bombs, doesn't mean it was tough. No one in AHII has the patience to climb to 30K+ as well, and a perk price would drive them to do it.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Martyn on January 03, 2009, 11:07:37 AM
We do need something to spend perks on. B-29, as you say, would be OK - just disable the formation checkbox if it's an issue.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Masherbrum on January 03, 2009, 11:23:51 AM
Some climb to 30k with the 17's, 24's and Lanc's.  

You're incorrect on the speeds.

B-17:  

Maximum speed: 287 mph
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (>800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)


B-29:

Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Bombs:  20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout

Ki-67:

Maximum speed: 334 mph (537 km/h)


Boston III:

Maximum Speed:  344 mph (550 km/h) at altitude.
Bombs - 4,000 lb (1,900 kg)


In short, the B-29 would be next to impossible to catch with a piston engined airplane, given the space and area within the game.   If you're underneath it, forget it.   To "catch up" would take more sectors than it already does.    If it were to be added, the payload could not be 20,000 lbs.   You could potentially take out 3 fields in a single sortie with just ONE B-29.  
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: ebfd11 on January 03, 2009, 12:36:14 PM
Hmmm maybe the b-29 isnt going to fly is because of the short span of time it was in service for the war. I do believe that there is to be a minimum time that planes are to be, to be able to fly in AHII. Just my guestimation why we wont have it.    :salute
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: FYB on January 03, 2009, 12:43:14 PM
I don't see why the Superfortress isn't already in game. It doesn't even need a large perk load out, since it's still a giant, slowmoving, silver bomber. Definitely not nearly as much of a tank as the B-17 was, easy to catch on fire, I doubt it would need a perk price of any more than 20, and that's too high for the damn thing. It was able to fly at high alts and hold lots of bombs, doesn't mean it was tough. No one in AHII has the patience to climb to 30K+ as well, and a perk price would drive them to do it.
Yes... quite agreeable, the plane is a giant silver ball with bullets.
It would take almost half the map of a medium map to get it to +30k.
I dont mind having it because almost nobody would have the patience to get it 20k - 30k.

-FYB
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: 1pLUs44 on January 03, 2009, 12:55:13 PM
Some climb to 30k with the 17's, 24's and Lanc's.  

You're incorrect on the speeds.

B-17:  

Maximum speed: 287 mph
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (>800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)


B-29:

Maximum speed: 357 mph (310 knots, 574 km/h)
Cruise speed: 220 mph (190 knots, 350 km/h)
Bombs:  20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout

Ki-67:

Maximum speed: 334 mph (537 km/h)


Boston III:

Maximum Speed:  344 mph (550 km/h) at altitude.
Bombs - 4,000 lb (1,900 kg)


In short, the B-29 would be next to impossible to catch with a piston engined airplane, given the space and area within the game.   If you're underneath it, forget it.   To "catch up" would take more sectors than it already does.    If it were to be added, the payload could not be 20,000 lbs.   You could potentially take out 3 fields in a single sortie with just ONE B-29.  

I suspected so, but I'm trying to point out that almost no one would be patient enough to climb to 30k in one. I'm not even patient enough to climb past 15k in my B-17s or B-24s.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Banshee7 on January 03, 2009, 01:17:43 PM
Pfft.  Wrong.

Everyone has their opinion.  And I didn't really mean to type allied...meant to say American.  Because the Brits had some dandies themselves  :aok
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: TOMCAT21 on January 03, 2009, 02:36:25 PM
as far as appearance in war went, the B-29 saw way more combat then the 234.  To add the B-29 and perk it, the perk value would have  to be approaching that of the 262.  I agree that we problably wont see the 29 anytime soon. The B-17F could be added and assign a modest perk value to 17G(ie..the spit 14 and F4U-1c/-4
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: A.F. Crash, Fire, Rescue on January 03, 2009, 03:26:30 PM
Some climb to 30k with the 17's, 24's and Lanc's.  

B-17:  

Maximum speed: 287 mph
Cruise speed: 182 mph
Short range missions (<400 mi): 8,000 lb (3,600 kg)
Long range missions (>800 mi): 4,500 lb (2,000 kg)

The B-17 was built to the 222 specifications established before WW2. Those specs were, carry 2000lbs of bombs or more at least 2000 miles at over 200mph.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Masherbrum on January 03, 2009, 06:50:03 PM
The B-17 was built to the 222 specifications established before WW2. Those specs were, carry 2000lbs of bombs or more at least 2000 miles at over 200mph.

Not for Cruise speed.   Thanks though.   
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: 100goon on January 04, 2009, 06:13:14 PM
ill end it now, NO
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: 100goon on January 04, 2009, 06:15:29 PM
thats the point..as stated, very few people would have the patience to actually climb one to where it is high enough to be safe from the blast.  Heck...the pilot of the B-29 said he felt the explosion at 30k..or however high he was


ive taken at 24 to 30k i find it fun up there, you can actually see the curveture of the "earth"
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Banshee7 on January 04, 2009, 06:31:37 PM
SQUEAK!

You said that in the Artillery thread....quit squeaking


ive taken at 24 to 30k i find it fun up there, you can actually see the curveture of the "earth"

And you are one person out of the ~7500 that play this game
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Puck on January 05, 2009, 08:49:04 AM
Everyone has their opinion.  And I didn't really mean to type allied...meant to say American.  Because the Brits had some dandies themselves  :aok

It wouldn't matter who said what was the "best", the answer is the same.  It's all subjective  :D

As for the patience to take a bomber to 30k, *MY* bombers are bigger on the inside than the outside.  During climb-out you can make dinner, watch a movie, work in the shop, mow the lawn, or just walk around the neighborhood.  The hard part is remembering to go back and bomb something once you're up there.  I wonder if you could get a B-29 to 40k in two or three hours?
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Denholm on January 05, 2009, 09:11:03 AM
...T H E   R U N W A Y S   I N    T H E   G A M E   A R E   N O T   L O N G    E N O U G H   T O    G E T   A    B 2 9    I N    T H E    A I R.

In order for us to have B29's HTC would have to redo all the airfields .....on all the maps .....thats a big job!!...
Just for your information, I can make a 5 mile long runway that fits on the tiles in no time. Runways are not the issue.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Relorian on January 05, 2009, 05:34:23 PM
A few people have said stuff about bombing at 20 - 30k up and how no one has the temperment for it.

Aside from my low level DB and porking raids, I usually find myself bombing from AT LEAST 20k. If the map has a good visibility I go higher. Most players dont have the temperment to take their fighters up there to stop you at 20 - 30k and the ones who do get my respect because they actually take the time, select the RIGHT plane and then commit to it (Aside from the random 163 pilots who just light the rocket, pull up and take potshots).

Hitting an enemy HQ or base from 30k is fun. They cant even see you at that height so the explosions just happen out of no where. Sure they get the flashing base but they dunno whats making it flash aside from something in the air that they cant see in the dar ring.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: weazely on January 05, 2009, 05:37:19 PM
If we get the B-29 they also better give us the nook.



 :)
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Chalenge on January 05, 2009, 06:48:45 PM
There was never a B-29 that could fly to 30k so 40k is out of the question. The director system for the guns was cutting edge technology that was never worked out until after the war. Magnesium fires in the engine nacelles would burn through wing spars and a loss of power on takeoff meant a dead crew seven out of ten times. That wouldnt matter in AH though because there are no random failures.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Odisseo on January 06, 2009, 06:36:53 AM
We do need something to spend perks on. B-29, as you say, would be OK - just disable the formation checkbox if it's an issue.

Already posted my idea about it, single bomber (anyone) free, formation should be perked. Formation could be set from 1 to 5 bombers. Every drone you loose make you loose the perk you payed it.
Title: Re: superfortress
Post by: Puck on January 06, 2009, 08:37:53 AM
I think the whole B-29 thing is a dead horse, anyway.  Besides, we have enough American bombers.

Bring on the Tu-4!

Hozzat?