Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: AcesHighMan2 on July 02, 2009, 10:16:34 AM
-
I would like the B-29 Super Fortress to BOMB!
-
If you use the search function you'll be able to read the thousands of other threads asking for the B-29.
-
I would like to apologize to all the kittens in the world. Catacaust Summer 2009
-
You must be new.
We have the B29 but you need to pay extra ($29.95) to get it... along with other aircraft like the 109G10, F8F, Mig-29 and X-Wing.
-
I would like the B-29 Super Fortress to BOMB!
nvm
-
I would like the B-29 Super Fortress to BOMB!
Thanks for sharing. Have a great day.
-
Screw the search dweebs.....
B-29 belongs in this game at some point!
-
No.
-
Ignore those crackpots ACESHIGH2MAN..
They just dont wan u to have access to what they have already...Until you install the b-29,you are not able to see it in the hangar,nor see it in-game..It is coded..I forget the code,but I believe you have to type .ENABLE <space>view<space>B29<space>haNGar<space>..There is a bit more to tpye,but keep asking and you may find someone who remembers more than me..
Offline mode is easy enough..You just have to type..
.enable <SPACE> B29hangarforunlimitedaccessin offlinemode...
It will only show up at one hangar in offline mode,and on each map that hangar is different,but once you find it,you are in the GOODS...
Good Luck :aok
-
I would like the B-29 Super Fortress to BOMB!
As a target on the ground?
-
someone still hasn't posted the pic with the b29 yet :D
-
(http://i244.photobucket.com/albums/gg3/Pannono/nookie.gif)
-
I would like to held captive by three gorgeous models as there sex slave, but that's not going to happin again :D
-
(http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/2427/asolameaqkwd.jpg)
(http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6956/beardedlady.jpg)
(http://img529.imageshack.us/img529/8723/pimple.jpg)
Wish granted boss!
Oh and NO to the b29!!!
-
Screw the search dweebs.....
B-29 belongs in this game at some point!
I shall quote The Holy Grail...
"You're a loony."
"I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away or I shall insult you a second time."
-
I would like the B-29 Super Fortress to BOMB!
...in the style of the Stuka, no doubt. :rolleyes:
-
I shall quote The Holy Grail...
"You're a loony."
"I fart in your general direction. Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Now go away or I shall insult you a second time."
:rofl
I really dont have an opinion on this but it makes me wonder, with all the ppl asking for it and how much of a role it played in WWII, why hasn't it been added? There's got to be a reason, so of it hasn't been added yet, it might not be added for a very long time.
-
:rofl
I really dont have an opinion on this but it makes me wonder, with all the ppl asking for it and how much of a role it played in WWII, why hasn't it been added? There's got to be a reason, so of it hasn't been added yet, it might not be added for a very long time.
Because Skuzz put a cap on how much ordy would be allowed per aircraft... b-29 is WAY over that...
Let's put this into perspective.
B-17: (Short range missions, max bomb load ) 8,000 lb (3,600 kg).
B-29: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout.
It would throw game balance out the window, and would be abused. It's max altitude and speed at that alititude would be disrupting, almost invincible at alt. And 20mm tail gun... well... self-explanitory.
-
Because Skuzz put a cap on how much ordy would be allowed per aircraft... b-29 is WAY over that...
Let's put this into perspective.
B-17: (Short range missions, max bomb load ) 8,000 lb (3,600 kg).
B-29: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout.
It would throw game balance out the window, and would be abused. It's max altitude and speed at that alititude would be disrupting, almost invincible at alt. And 20mm tail gun... well... self-explanitory.
So put limits on it, make it so its only available to fly on certain days or from certain airfeilds. That simple really. :D
-
I would actually be ok with the B29, if it was only available at the rear airfield, like the 163. 29 would have the range to fly to and bomb the front from there... but would take a while to climb to alt and get there. Would give interceptors plenty of time to up and catch them.. even if only a few planes could do so.
Sol
-
Screw the search dweebs.....
B-29 belongs in this game at some point!
10 seconds before the game ends.
-
Because Skuzz put a cap on how much ordy would be allowed per aircraft... b-29 is WAY over that...
Let's put this into perspective.
B-17: (Short range missions, max bomb load ) 8,000 lb (3,600 kg).
B-29: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout.
It would throw game balance out the window, and would be abused. It's max altitude and speed at that alititude would be disrupting, almost invincible at alt. And 20mm tail gun... well... self-explanitory.
This is a complete fabrication and has no basis in reality.
1) Skuzzy is the hardware tech guy, not the game designer. Those decisions are made by HiTech and Pyro.
2) There is no payload limit set in AH. The only limits for bombs that have ever been stated are a) no nukes and b) no single bomb over 4,000lbs.
Other than those all WWII equipment is fair game, but there are lots of considerations. For example, a B-29 would take as much developer time as 4-6 fighters.
-
This is a complete fabrication and has no basis in reality.
1) Skuzzy is the hardware tech guy, not the game designer. Those decisions are made by HiTech and Pyro.
2) There is no payload limit set in AH. The only limits for bombs that have ever been stated are a) no nukes and b) no single bomb over 4,000lbs.
:aok :rock
For example, a B-29 would take as much developer time as 4-6 fighters.
Yea but it'd be worth it, plus in my opinion we already have enough fighters.
-
All of this talk about the B29 has inspired me to make a little movie. The text wasnt big enough to see it on YouTube... but its a really fast download.
http://home.comcast.net/~princeak/BomberMovie.wmv
Enjoy!
-
So put limits on it, make it so its only available to fly on certain days or from certain airfeilds. That simple really. :D
If it's so simple, why haven't you coded it?
-
Yea but it'd be worth it, plus in my opinion we already have enough fighters.
I disagree. There are many gaps that need plugging before we get the B-29A, even other bombers.
The next perk bomber is likely to be the A-26 or Mosquito B.Mk XVI simply due to practicallity. Also keep in mind that if/when the B-29A is added it will be a very pricey perk plane.
-
The B29?
What a great idea! I wonder why no one has asked for it before? Probably should have Nukes as an option too! New map to reset in 10 seconds!
-
If it's so simple, why haven't you coded it?
When I said "simple" I meant about the retrictions not the coding. If it's easier to just perk the plane extremely high (which it is) then just do it, and if we add an A bomb with, (like asking to own the world) then perk that in the tens of thousands.
All of this talk about the B29 has inspired me to make a little movie. The text wasnt big enough to see it on YouTube... but its a really fast download.
http://home.comcast.net/~princeak/BomberMovie.wmv
Enjoy!
:rofl :aok
-
1 single person could DEMOLISH a HQ by themselves aslike as they have 2 drones.
-
The B29?
What a great idea! I wonder why no one has asked for it before? Probably should have Nukes as an option too! New map to reset in 10 seconds!
Map reset in 10secs...hmm...could be a good thing. :D
-
This is a complete fabrication and has no basis in reality.
1) Skuzzy is the hardware tech guy, not the game designer. Those decisions are made by HiTech and Pyro.
2) There is no payload limit set in AH. The only limits for bombs that have ever been stated are a) no nukes and b) no single bomb over 4,000lbs.
True, my apologies, I remember reading that somewhere, so sorry it's not true.
But my position doesn't change. B-29 has no place in the game, 20,000 lbs of ordy standard loadout... And adding drones to the mix? No thank you.
Yea but it'd be worth it, plus in my opinion we already have enough fighters.
Uhh, enough fighters? No, we only have a fraction of those that were operational in WWII, I'd love to see more holes patched with the fighter set up before bombers go into ''overdrive.'' The B-29 would throw off balance, and with the tards we have already, you really wanna trust them with 20,000 lbs of bombs?
-
Would give interceptors plenty of time to up and catch them.. even if only a few planes could do so.
Sol
If you knew it was coming.......
Yea but it'd be worth it, plus in my opinion we already have enough fighters.
Seems we have plenty of bombers too....three for each flight, and robo gunned.
-
The B-29 would throw off balance, and with the tards we have already, you really wanna trust them with 20,000 lbs of bombs?
For the last time, PERK IT EXTREMELY HIGH AND PERK THE ORDANCE IF ITS THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM, maybe perk it so a single B29 would be 100 perks, then a formation would be 300. Pretty makes it impossible for noobs to get it.
-
For the last time, PERK IT EXTREMELY HIGH AND PERK THE ORDANCE IF ITS THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM, maybe perk it so a single B29 would be 100 perks, then a formation would be 300. Pretty makes it impossible for noobs to get it.
I was thinking more like 200-300 for a single B-29A and 600-900 for a formation.
-
For the last time, PERK IT EXTREMELY HIGH AND PERK THE ORDANCE IF ITS THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM, maybe perk it so a single B29 would be 100 perks, then a formation would be 300. Pretty makes it impossible for noobs to get it.
Even with the perk being absurdly high, it would still be disruptful. A single b-29 could drop an airfield and then some...
But how could that ever be a problem?
:noid
-
I would like the B-29 Super Fortress to BOMB!
See Rule # 15 :D
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268135.0/topicseen.html
-
A single b-29 could drop an airfield and then some...
Then limit its capabilities, or make it so when it flys into dar a big sign appears over it so every person can come in their spits and 262's to shoot it down.
-
See Rule # 15 :D
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268135.0/topicseen.html
we should leave the moderating to the moderators even if this is a clear breach of rule 15 as it so certainly seems to be.
:x
-
Because Skuzz put a cap on how much ordy would be allowed per aircraft... b-29 is WAY over that...
Let's put this into perspective.
B-17: (Short range missions, max bomb load ) 8,000 lb (3,600 kg).
B-29: 20,000 lb (9,000 kg) standard loadout.
It would throw game balance out the window, and would be abused. It's max altitude and speed at that alititude would be disrupting, almost invincible at alt. And 20mm tail gun... well... self-explanitory.
:cry
1 single person could DEMOLISH a HQ by themselves aslike as they have 2 drones.
:cry
[/quote]I was thinking more like 200-300 for a single B-29A and 600-900 for a formation.
:cry
See Rule # 15 :D
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,268135.0/topicseen.html
:cry
Boy, I tell ya. I haven't seen so many skirts since my girlfriend dragged me into a hot topic for her birthday.
Look, if it ever does show up its gonna be like the bomber counterpart to the 262. Yes it'll be hard to kill, yes it'll dish out some serious hurt if you don't keep it in check but it will be far from invincible and expensive as hell!!!!. There are planes in the game now that can catch it and the only thing that would stop someone from doing that is just pure laziness to climb that high and fly for that long.
-
Boy, I tell ya. I haven't seen so many skirts since my girlfriend dragged me into a hot topic for her birthday.
Look, if it ever does show up its gonna be like the bomber counterpart to the 262. Yes it'll be hard to kill, yes it'll dish out some serious hurt if you don't keep it in check but it will be far from invincible and expensive as hell!!!!. There are planes in the game now that can catch it and the only thing that would stop someone from doing that is just pure laziness to climb that high and fly for that long.
AMEN! :aok
-
Not that this has anything to do with the B-29 but.....
http://www.mediafire.com/file/n1zvyawmtym/Highest Recorded B-17 Altitude!.ahf
Oh yeah, I would abuse the hell outta the 29 and max out the alt every flight. Be afraid fighter jocks. :noid
-
me 2
-
nm
-
Look, if it ever does show up its gonna be like the bomber counterpart to the 262. Yes it'll be hard to kill, yes it'll dish out some serious hurt if you don't keep it in check but it will be far from invincible and expensive as hell!!!!. There are planes in the game now that can catch it and the only thing that would stop someone from doing that is just pure laziness to climb that high and fly for that long.
So, you're gonna climb to 30k in a TA-152 and just hang out up there, waiting to hopefully catch a b-29 only to get whacked by 1 20mm tater to the prop?
-
Look, if it ever does show up its gonna be like the bomber counterpart to the 262. Yes it'll be hard to kill, yes it'll dish out some serious hurt if you don't keep it in check but it will be far from invincible and expensive as hell!!!!. There are planes in the game now that can catch it and the only thing that would stop someone from doing that is just pure laziness to climb that high and fly for that long.
And a price of 200-300 per plane puts it right in that same category as the Me262.
-
So, you're gonna climb to 30k in a TA-152 and just hang out up there, waiting to hopefully catch a b-29 only to get whacked by 1 20mm tater to the prop?
I'm not exactly a historian but don't remember reading anything about the 8th air force giving the Luftwaffe a courtesy call telling them "Hey, we're gonna bomb some factory in Essen tomorrow around noon your time. Just a friendly heads up Ol' chap..."
So yes, if you we're planning on intercepting even MY group of B-17s which never bomb below 32k, your gonna have to do a little CAP or some other means of defeating a true bombing raid. Think proactive instead of reactive for once in this game.
-
b29 is needed. I would say make it so you could only fly 1 at a time and perk that one very high like 500 for one plane. Or set the ord limit to a little more than the lancaster or something. It doesnt have to have a full load or even a historically correct load out. The imporant thing is to have the plane in the game.
-
Explain to me again why it's 'needed"?
Some folks clearly want it, but in terms of game play, it's hardly 'needed'
-
Explain to me again why it's 'needed"?
Some folks clearly want it, but in terms of game play, it's hardly 'needed'
34,000 sorties
-
He said explain, not post a number.
And I agree with Guppy, it is not needed.
-
Explain to me again why it's 'needed"?
Some folks clearly want it, but in terms of game play, it's hardly 'needed'
its needed just as much as we need all the variants of spits, and f4u's. Its needed as much as the 262, hell the 262 and 163, if we cant have the b29 then why the **** do when have the jet and rocket? Its needed as much as we need the I16 and brewster. Its a new plane and its a bomber (which we do not have many) and it will go great with some historical battles. You guys dont "want" it because you think its not needed and thats all the bomber guys would fly, when we all know for a fact thats not true, because then all the early war planes would never be flown but however they are flown as much as the late war planes are cause people like to fight challenging aircraft. In fact, half our list of planes currently is not really needed such as the mentioned above
and as in terms of gameplay...it would be freaky fun to fly...i would love it! and im sure all the bomber guys would too thats why gameplay wise its needed...cause its fun...on, guess what, a video game!
-
We have plenty of bombers. We have: A-20, Ar 234, B-17, B-24, B-25C, B-25H, B-26, Boston, B5N, D3A, Ju 87, Ju 88, Ki-67, Lanc, SBD, and TBM.
Try one
-
We have plenty of bombers. We have: A-20, Ar 234, B-17, B-24, B-25C, B-25H, B-26, Boston, B5N, D3A, Ju 87, Ju 88, Ki-67, Lanc, SBD, and TBM.
Try one
16 bombers; Lets go to fighters now:
f4f-4, f4u-1, f4u-1a, f4u-1c, f4u-1d, f4u-4, f6f-5, fm2, p-38g,j,L, p-39d,q,p-40b,e,p-47d11,d25,d40,N, p-51b,d,hurricane mk 1, 2c,2d, mosquito, seafire, spit 1,5,8,9,14,16,tempest,typhoon,bf109e4,f4,g2,g6,g14,k4,bf110c4b,g2,fw190a5,a8,d9,f8,me163,262,ta152,c202,205,a6m2,5b,ki61, 84, n1k2, la5,la7,yak9t,u
60 fighters to 16 bombers, whats your point exactly? all im asking is why are you making the argument of that we dont need the 29, when we have the 163 and 262, 6 spit,109, and f4u varients, half of our fighter list is varients of the same aircraft, and not all are "needed"
so whats your argument?
-
Flipperk,
Thing is, the B-29A (or H8K2) would take a much greater amount of developer work and it would be heavily restricted in use. Instead of a B-29A HTC could probably do a Wellington Mk III, Do-217E and a Ki-43.
In addition it would only really be useful in scenarios that are extremely lopsided.
Should it be added eventually? Yes. But for now there are far better aircraft to add.
We do need more perk bombers, but that can be filled with the A-26 and/or Mosquito B.Mk XVI.
Other bombers that are needed or would be nice:
B6N2 'Jill'
B7A2 'Gracy'
D4Y2 'Judy'
Do217E
G4M2 'Betty'
Hampden Mk I
He111H-16
He177A-5
Ju188A-1
Mosquito B.Mk IV
P1Y1 Ginga 'Frances'
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devastator
Wellington B.Mk III
Research some of those.
-
its needed just as much as we need all the variants of spits, and f4u's. Its needed as much as the 262, hell the 262 and 163, if we cant have the b29 then why the **** do when have the jet and rocket? Its needed as much as we need the I16 and brewster. Its a new plane and its a bomber (which we do not have many) and it will go great with some historical battles. You guys dont "want" it because you think its not needed and thats all the bomber guys would fly, when we all know for a fact thats not true, because then all the early war planes would never be flown but however they are flown as much as the late war planes are cause people like to fight challenging aircraft. In fact, half our list of planes currently is not really needed such as the mentioned above
and as in terms of gameplay...it would be freaky fun to fly...i would love it! and im sure all the bomber guys would too thats why gameplay wise its needed...cause its fun...on, guess what, a video game!
What historical battles are we talking about?
You plan on flying from Tinian? You going to haul your own fuel to your base in China, from India so you can go bomb Japan? You going to fly night raids at low level with incendiaries to Tokyo?
You going to ask that HTC flesh out the Japanese plane set so you have something to intercept your B29? Seems like any number of Japanese birds would have to be done first.
How does it help the MA other then to give the bomber guys a faster way to kill a fight, suicide the hangers or the carrier? What can you do with the 29 that you can't do with Lancs, 17s, 24s etc?
-
See Rule #6
-
The B29 is WAY larger that the regular bombers so the modelling is more difficult. That's more work.
The B29 would require new airfields and bomber hangars large enough to accommodate them. Current maps would need heavy modifications and a lot of testing. . That's more work.
The B29 would require the remote 20mm system which doesn't exist in AH, the ar234 needs it too. That's more work.
The B29 due to its HUGE loadout would require the HQ hardiness to be looked into, and a formation of them could level a large field easily, that needs to be looked into also. Gameplay balancing is very difficult. Thats more work.
That's a lot of work for a single perked plane while we could have a lot of new stuff for the same work time.
The B29 would be nearly impossible to intercept, and I'm not sure I want to see people that extract themselves from the regular gameplay and interact with other players just by killing their hangars while being untouchable.
I like the current deal with the lancaster having the most bombs and speed, and B17-24 having less bombs and speed but tons of guns. It worked for 10 years and its still good.
NO thanks.
Plus the B29 would be a hangar queen at the end.
Voila
-
The B29 due to its HUGE loadout would require the HQ hardiness to be looked into, and a formation of them could level a large field easily, that needs to be looked into also. Gameplay balancing is very difficult. Thats more work.
In the 2 years that I've been playing I've noticed that even when we do get close to an HQ the only people who want to bomb it are "squeakers" (keep in mind there are a few instances where that doesn't happen), and for some reason I up with them most of the time. You have nothing to worry about, none of them hit it and there was about 20 ppl there, they all went after the other buildings with it, no one knew that it was the tiny concrete square block. Almost none of them hit the other buildings either, so as far as I'm concerned, Bish don't pose a problem with HQ or with hangars etc. since the only people who know how to bomb are fighter jocks who won't waste their time bombing even if we get the B29.
-
In the 2 years that I've been playing I've noticed that even when we do get close to an HQ the only people who want to bomb it are "squeakers" (keep in mind there are a few instances where that doesn't happen), and for some reason I up with them most of the time. You have nothing to worry about, none of them hit it and there was about 20 ppl there, they all went after the other buildings with it, no one knew that it was the tiny concrete square block. Almost none of them hit the other buildings either, so as far as I'm concerned, Bish don't pose a problem with HQ or with hangars etc. since the only people who know how to bomb are fighter jocks who won't waste their time bombing even if we get the B29.
Thats one more point for not having the B29 :aok
Except that the people that would be able to afford a B29 formation made these perks bombing, so they can bomb !
-
I've bombed the HQ with a formation of Ki-67s just to get the Me163s to come up and play.
-
Flipperk,
Thing is, the B-29A (or H8K2) would take a much greater amount of developer work and it would be heavily restricted in use. Instead of a B-29A HTC could probably do a Wellington Mk III, Do-217E and a Ki-43.
In addition it would only really be useful in scenarios that are extremely lopsided.
Should it be added eventually? Yes. But for now there are far better aircraft to add.
We do need more perk bombers, but that can be filled with the A-26 and/or Mosquito B.Mk XVI.
Other bombers that are needed or would be nice:
B6N2 'Jill'
B7A2 'Gracy'
D4Y2 'Judy'
Do217E
G4M2 'Betty'
Hampden Mk I
He111H-16
He177A-5
Ju188A-1
Mosquito B.Mk IV
P1Y1 Ginga 'Frances'
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devastator
Wellington B.Mk III
P-61A/B "Black Widow"
Research some of those.
hehe fixed :D
-
Ok, so I was thinking about starting a thread over an idea I had a while back. Not exactly original but then again when we're talking to a bunch of furballers that are too lazy to fly on a realistic intercept mission, this sounds like a decent alternative.
Introduce perked GV's that are armed with flak cannons. I'm thinking either a cannon that can be towed by a jeep or half-track and has to be set up before each use, or have a flak cannon on the back of a flat bed truck or tractor trailer (or why not both?). The cannons could be used as both flak guns or regular artillery and to top it off, you could have a new gunnery mode specifically for using it as a flak gun that would aid (and I do mean AID, not lock on and kill in one hit!!!) the flak crews in tracking and firing on a high altitude bomber flight.
The pros to this would be that in addition to finally having real artillery in the game, you would now have a way to shoot down a high alt. bomber without having to get off your bellybutton and chase it down for more than likely an hour. The cons would be that like regular puffy ack fired from strats, it wouldn't burst under 5,000 feet and it would be a perked ride, thus making it a little impractical for defending a base against an NOE raid (so yes, the NOE lanc runs that you all love so much will still be a viable option :furious) but more useful for hitting high altitude contacts within minutes of detecting them.
Again this is just a ruff idea and is VERY open for improvement so I'd love to hear the feedback on this one.
-
Introduce perked GV's that are armed with flak cannons. I'm thinking either a cannon that can be towed by a jeep or half-track and has to be set up before each use, or have a flak cannon on the back of a flat bed truck or tractor trailer (or why not both?). The cannons could be used as both flak guns or regular artillery and to top it off, you could have a new gunnery mode specifically for using it as a flak gun that would aid (and I do mean AID, not lock on and kill in one hit!!!) the flak crews in tracking and firing on a high altitude bomber flight.
The pros to this would be that in addition to finally having real artillery in the game, you would now have a way to shoot down a high alt. bomber without having to get off your bellybutton and chase it down for more than likely an hour. The cons would be that like regular puffy ack fired from strats, it wouldn't burst under 5,000 feet and it would be a perked ride, thus making it a little impractical for defending a base against an NOE raid (so yes, the NOE lanc runs that you all love so much will still be a viable option :furious) but more useful for hitting high altitude contacts within minutes of detecting them.
:aok
Not exactly original but then again when we're talking to a bunch of furballers that are too lazy to fly on a realistic intercept mission, this sounds like a decent alternative.
:rock
The pros to this would be that in addition to finally having real artillery in the game, you would now have a way to shoot down a high alt. bomber without having to get off your bellybutton and chase it down for more than likely an hour.
Lazy bellybutton fighter jocks always poo-pooing every bomber idea so that HiTech will work on their precious fighters instead.
-
then the would complain that the bombers don't always fly in perfectly strait lines or that their flak rounds don't come with heat seeking heads.
-
:aok :rockLazy bellybutton fighter jocks always poo-pooing every bomber idea so that HiTech will work on their precious fighters instead.
This is a beauty of a quote. Explain to me how a B29 with that bombload is going to make buff drivers more precise and work harder? Seems like it's a lazy bellybutton bomber pilot request to make ruining the fight easier :)
-
This is a beauty of a quote. Explain to me how a B29 with that bombload is going to make buff drivers more precise and work harder? Seems like it's a lazy bellybutton bomber pilot request to make ruining the fight easier :)
Give him 6 months and he will be allover the fighters. I started with bombers too.
-
and I do mean AID, not lock on and kill in one hit!!! the flak crews in tracking and firing on a high altitude bomber flight.
...Are you saying an 88mm EXPLOSIVE gun to the wing wouldn't blow the crap out of an aircraft carrying 20,000 lbs of high explosives and god knows how much fuel, rather it would just "love tap" the aircraft into slight submission? Something about this logic seems off...
This is a beauty of a quote. Explain to me how a B29 with that bombload is going to make buff drivers more precise and work harder? Seems like it's a lazy bellybutton bomber pilot request to make ruining the fight easier :)
Took the words straight out of my mouth, cause see, we "lazy bellybutton fighter pilots" who up, don't set auto climb, we defend your precious airfield that you launch your worthless bomber sorties out after (Lone bomber is really quite worthless for the most part, a group of bombers, bomber/attack or even bomber/fighter on the other hand can be handy) looking for an "epic" score. While you hold down your "U" key and press your "fire secondary" button after making a couple light nudges, we're on brink of a stall in a 5v1. So if you'd like to maybe tone down the complaining a bit... it'd be appreciated, especially as we gave a list of other bombers that are much more IMPORTANT to being added to the game, and would take MUCH less time and effort to being added.
The b-29 would disrupt gameplay, no doubt, I don't care if it has a perk of 1,000, bomber perks are easy to get, and you don't have much to spend 'em on. Limit them, okay, so I'm gonna be AFK for an hour, let's launch a b-29 in this direction and set auto climb... come back, ah, right on target... The b-29 should be added EVENTUALLY, but not for a long while, we have much more prevalent aircraft that need to be added first.
EDIT: Couple of grammatical mistakes... oops.
-
The problem is that there are only 2 or 3 true "heavy bombers" in the game - The Lancaster III, B-17, and B-24.
When it's a well known fact that the allies has many more heavy bombers. And while there are a total of what, 16 bombers in the game - how many of them can actually carry more than 8,000 lbs of ordnance? Thank you come again.
Also, I'll have to agree with someone else that posted in this thread in regards to the "furballers".
As I recall, this is a game that allows use of ground, sea, and air vehicles - with some degree of historical accuracy (as-in, only aircraft that were operational during WWII being in the game). But we seem to be missing the fact that the B-29 was a highly used aircraft in the latter period of the war - come to think of it, it's the one that brought it to an END.
And while I don't care much for any ideas of it having "unconventional weapons", ie (NUKES), that was not the only instance in which the B29 was used. Sure, we used them to nuke Japan, twice - but I think alot of people seem to be overlooking how many other sorties the B29 flew. I'm quite sure it flew a hell of alot more than some of the planes that are included in the game, for instance the Me-262.
-
When it's a well known fact that the allies has many more heavy bombers. And while there are a total of what, 16 bombers in the game - how many of them can actually carry more than 8,000 lbs of ordnance? Thank you come again.
How many could carry that much in reality ? The only ones we don't have I can think off are the other 4 engined RAF night bombers, and maybe a Russian one if you throw a couple crewmen overboard...
come to think of it, it's the one that brought it to an END.
Erm...err.... :rolleyes:....something is so disturbing in that statement.
but I think alot of people seem to be overlooking how many other sorties the B29 flew
I remember someone talking about the ratio of combat sorties against the total number of sorties, it was interesting....
-
So if you'd like to maybe tone down the complaining a bit... it'd be appreciated, especially as we gave a list of other bombers that are much more IMPORTANT to being added to the game, and would take MUCH less time and effort to being added.
How am I the one that needs to tone down the complaining when almost every thread I click on your poo-pooing their idea? Hmmmm, interesting isn't it? :O
-
How am I the one that needs to tone down the complaining when almost every thread I click on your poo-pooing their idea? Hmmmm, interesting isn't it? :O
Well, once your 2 weeks are up...
See, as my sig. says, most wonderful time of the year...
Summer brings out the kiddies that bring up ideas that have been brought up a million times before and have been shot down for normally more than 1 great reason. I support ideas that could benifit the game, not disrupt it.
-
Even with the perk being absurdly high, it would still be disruptful. A single b-29 could drop an airfield and then some...
But how could that ever be a problem?
:noid
I already take out a small airfield by myself in Lancs.....But, I think we do need another "Perk" bomber.
-
I already take out a small airfield by myself in Lancs.....But, I think we do need another "Perk" bomber.
A-26 or Mosquito B.Mk XVI will fill that role just fine, without sucking off as much dev time.
-
How many could carry that much in reality ? The only ones we don't have I can think off are the other 4 engined RAF night bombers, and maybe a Russian one if you throw a couple crewmen overboard...
Let's see.
The B-17 had a MAX payload of 17,600 lbs of ordnance (short range - reduced fuel load)
The B-24 had an internal payload of 8,000 lbs, when using optional external bomb racks
Then there's the B-29 that could handle up to 20,000 pounds.
So, there's 3 - and they're all american WWII aircraft.
EDIT: I have the B17 and B24 listed because apparently the game has inaccurate payloads. The B24 in-game only allows 6000lbs, and the B-24 has 8,000lbs (all internal) which is inaccurate.
Source: http://www.globalaircraft.org/ (http://www.globalaircraft.org/)
-
I'm quite sure it flew a hell of alot more than some of the planes that are included in the game, for instance the Me-262.
Surely it did fly more than some, but you bring up an interesting point in the Me 262. How many flew would be one thing, as Germany was very very short on fuel by the time the Me 262 entered service, but many more Me 262's were produced than people think- in fact, well over 1,000 were produced.
Out of curiosity, how many B-29's were produced during the war?
Let's see.
The B-17 had a MAX payload of 17,600 lbs of ordnance (short range - reduced fuel load)
The B-24 had an internal payload of 8,000 lbs, when using optional external bomb racks
Then there's the B-29 that could handle up to 20,000 pounds.
So, there's 3 - and they're all american WWII aircraft.
Source: http://www.globalaircraft.org/ (http://www.globalaircraft.org/)
How many could carry that much in reality ? The only ones we don't have I can think off are the other 4 engined RAF night bombers, and maybe a Russian one if you throw a couple crewmen overboard...
-
You posted as I was editing, recheck the post. The ordnance payloads on them are inaccurate.
EDIT:
From what little research I did, productions numbers are just under 4,000 - though that undoubtedly includes post-WWII production as well. As far as how many were utilized in WWII, I would estimate that in their earliest sorties, were numbered at less than 1,000. They were however, being rolled off of the assembly line at a pretty good pace.
EDIT:
Forgot to add that the Soviets also had a twin to the B29 that they utilized in a few different variations, though they were constructed and modelled identically from several B29s that the Soviets had "captured". A little research goes a long way.
-
<S> Gentlemen,
My opinion is.....I would like another HIGH ALTITUDE "Perk" Bomber. There is only 1 perk bomber in the game. My bomber perks are building up...I want to spend them on something. The AR234 doesn't carry enough bombs for my satisfaction either. Just a gamer with an opinion like everyone else.
-
Mosquito B.Mk XVI has a best altitude of about 27,000ft.
Still, might not have enough bombs for you. Options would be four 500lbers in the bomb bay or four 500lbers in the bomb bay and two 500lbers on the wings or one 4,000lb 'cookie' in the bomb bay.
-
<S> Gentlemen,
My opinion is.....I would like another HIGH ALTITUDE "Perk" Bomber. There is only 1 perk bomber in the game. My bomber perks are building up...I want to spend them on something. The AR234 doesn't carry enough bombs for my satisfaction either. Just a gamer with an opinion like everyone else.
If you want to have fun do what I do, use the 234 as a divebomber/dogfighter. It's a formidable dogfighter once you use it tactically, ask all the people that I've towered. :) you won't turn with people, but the key is to draw the fighter close in (400/600) and blast him with the 20mms. I dunno, I have fun doing it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm totally for another perked bomber, but it's something for me to do in the mean time.
-
WE DEMAND THE B-29!!!!!
and bigger hangers to stow it in....
Lower the perk price of all planes with its introduction....simple :aok
-
Let's see.
The B-17 had a MAX payload of 17,600 lbs of ordnance (short range - reduced fuel load)
The B-24 had an internal payload of 8,000 lbs, when using optional external bomb racks
Then there's the B-29 that could handle up to 20,000 pounds.
So, there's 3 - and they're all american WWII aircraft.
EDIT: I have the B17 and B24 listed because apparently the game has inaccurate payloads. The B24 in-game only allows 6000lbs, and the B-24 has 8,000lbs (all internal) which is inaccurate.
Source: http://www.globalaircraft.org/ (http://www.globalaircraft.org/)
b-24 not innacurate, that's its short range load, the B-17 is closer to it's long range load, but is in between the two. Not quite innacurate unless they were off the scale. ;)I already take out a small airfield by myself in Lancs.....But, I think we do need another "Perk" bomber.
Small airfield, okay. In a b-29 you could drop a small airfield, total its town, then drop another fields hangers...
Or drop 1 large airfield alone...
-
b-24 not innacurate, that's its short range load, the B-17 is closer to it's long range load, but is in between the two. Not quite innacurate unless they were off the scale. ;)
Small airfield, okay. In a b-29 you could drop a small airfield, total its town, then drop another fields hangers...
Or drop 1 large airfield alone...
How do you figure it to be accurate?: The game lists the B-24 as having 8,000 lbs of ordnance (which would be accurate provided it utilized the external bombrails, which is does not. The B-17 is capped at 6,000 lbs (which is needless to say not even close to 17,600 lbs), which is not even an option, even at a 25% fuel loadout. I listed the source to back that up; so my question is, where is yours? Oh wait, my bad - you didn't have one.
Thank you, and come again.
-
B-17 Flying Fortress
In response for the Army's request for a large, multiengine bomber, the B-17 (Model 299) prototype, financed entirely by Boeing, went from design board to flight test in less than 12 months.
The B-17 was a low-wing monoplane that combined aerodynamic features of the XB-15 giant bomber, still in the design stage, and the Model 247 transport. The B-17 was the first Boeing military aircraft with a flight deck instead of an open cockpit and was armed with bombs and five .30-caliber machine guns mounted in clear "blisters."
The first B-17s saw combat in 1941, when the British Royal Air Force took delivery of several B-17s for high-altitude missions. As World War II intensified, the bombers needed additional armament and armor.
The B-17E, the first mass-produced model Flying Fortress, carried nine machine guns and a 4,000-pound bomb load. It was several tons heavier than the prototypes and bristled with armament. It was the first Boeing airplane with the distinctive -- and enormous -- tail for improved control and stability during high-altitude bombing. Each version was more heavily armed.
In the Pacific, the planes earned a deadly reputation with the Japanese, who dubbed them "four-engine fighters." The Fortresses were also legendary for their ability to stay in the air after taking brutal poundings. They sometimes limped back to their bases with large chunks of the fuselage shot off.
Boeing plants built a total of 6,981 B-17s in various models, and another 5,745 were built under a nationwide collaborative effort by Douglas and Lockheed (Vega). Only a few B-17s survive today; most were scrapped at the end of the war. Some of the last Flying Fortresses met their end as target drones in the 1960s -- destroyed by Boeing Bomarc missiles.
B-17G Specifications First flight: July 28, 1935 (prototype)
Model number: 299
Classification: Bomber
Span: 103 feet 9 inches
Length: 74 feet 9 inches
Gross weight: 65,000 pounds
Top speed: 287 mph
Cruising speed: 150 mph
Range (max.): 3,750 miles
Ceiling: 35,600 feet
Power: Four 1,200-horsepower Wright R-1820-97 engines
Accommodation: 2 pilots, bombardier, radio-operator, 5 gunners
Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load
Source:http://www.boeing.com/history/boeing/b17.html
I don't know, I like my source...thank you, come again.
-
Armament: 11 to 13 machine guns, 9,600-pound bomb load
That doesn't change the fact that the game's limitations on the B-17 are inaccurate. Besides, the payload I listed, not to mention SPECIFICALLY STATED was in a short-range loadout.
KTHNXBAI
-
That doesn't change the fact that the game's limitations on the B-17 are inaccurate. Besides, the payload I listed, not to mention SPECIFICALLY STATED was in a short-range loadout.
KTHNXBAI
The bomb loads we have in AH are the common mission loads, not the rare or never used loads that would be the only loads taken in the game. The standard B-17 load was 6,000lbs, standard B-24 load was 8,000lbs and the standard Lancaster load was 13,000 or 14,000lbs.
-
The bomb loads we have in AH are the common mission loads, not the rare or never used loads that would be the only loads taken in the game. The standard B-17 load was 6,000lbs, standard B-24 load was 8,000lbs and the standard Lancaster load was 13,000 or 14,000lbs.
Why do you guys always get on before I do and say what I was going to say? :lol
You know... new wish, 2 weekers aren't allowed to make wishlist requests. Have to have at least had a sub. for at least 2 months...
See, this game is more complex then you see right now. It's not all about you, in fact, for the most part, it's not about you. This game is about appealing to the masses while keeping it BALANCED (I know... hard concept, don't give one player the ability to win it all on their own...), fun, and accurate. Fine line. The Aces High staff do an OUTSTANDING job at what they do, and cover all their ground before considering adding anything, then when it is added, shocker to say, its pretty accurate. It's amazing what research can do for you...
-
That's funny - really it is.
Especially since 90% of all posts that I see (especially for the B29) are mostly from members that have anywhere from several hundred, to several thousand posts - but of course that apparently automatically makes them "2 weekers" in your eyes. It's also funny that you say "it's about the masses" - and my best guess (judging by the MANY posts on the subject across MANY threads) would seem to appear that at least a good number of the "masses" support a B29.
Now let's see - you want to talk about how it would be "unbalanced" and/or "disruptive to gameplay", yet what I have yet to see is a solid, and valid reason as to why. Arguements are never won without giving a solid reason as to why something should not be integrated. Yet, I do not dispute the fact that the HT team does an outstanding job, nor have I ever said anything to the contrary. Though it would seem to me that there's a certain group of sweetheartbags here that just want to shoot down one idea or another simply because they do not agree with it, or they offer the same roadkill generic excuses stating how it would be "unbalanced", etc etc etc, blah blah blah.
And I'm sure that a good majority of you would also be responbile for steering any new players away from actually subscribing to the game, simply because you choose to be moronic amazinhunks to anyone that hasn't been playing this game for umpteen years.
My word of advice, pull your head from your ass, and go get laid. Alternative advice: save yourself the years of sexual frustration and go ahead and shoot yourself in the head.
I'm done with you morons.
-
LOL. Promise?
-
LOL!
I would love HTC forever (more) if they made a basic B29 model and it was only available in the terrain/obj editor for use on the ground of custom maps. I would just find that hilarious :devil.
-
I did give my reasons, nobody answered, and now you moved to the insults chapter.
who's the moron ?
funny indeed
-
Think someone needs a hug!
-
I did give my reasons, nobody answered, and now you moved to the insults chapter.
who's the moron ?
funny indeed
Many of us gave reasons, he is just one of the people who "wins" arguments by claiming the other side's points are invalid and don't count.
-
Many of us gave reasons, he is just one of the people who "wins" arguments by claiming the other side's points are invalid and don't count.
I have yet to see him win an arguement.
-
Super fort !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
That's funny - really it is.
And I'm sure that a good majority of you would also be responbile for steering any new players away from actually subscribing to the game, simply because you choose to be moronic amazinhunks to anyone that hasn't been playing this game for umpteen years.
My word of advice, pull your head from your ass, and go get laid. Alternative advice: save yourself the years of sexual frustration and go ahead and shoot yourself in the head.
I'm done with you morons.
I call shenanigans on your diatribe. You've already made another shades account to hide behind. The only one "needing a life" is yourself.
See you in the Funny Papers!
-
K,
I still think he needs a hug...