Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aircraft and Vehicles => Topic started by: 1carbine on December 09, 2009, 08:27:57 PM
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/world-war-2-aircraft.asp
I posted the link above to a lot of planes we don't have, some we do, others not so popular but one that did see air time was the B-29 but apparently it didn't have enough "historical significance" to be put in the game but oh well thank you for taking the time to read my post and thank spell check for my grammar :salute
-
http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/world-war-2-aircraft.asp
I posted the link above to a lot of planes we don't have, some we do, others not so popular but one that did see air time was the B-29 but apparently it didn't have enough "historical significance" to be put in the game but oh well thank you for taking the time to read my post and thank spell check for my grammar :salute
There are other reasons the 29 isn't in game.
-
Historical insignificance as you put it is not the reason why the B-29 isn't in game, nor would I consider the plane that dropped two atomic bombs during war time to be 'historically insignificant'.
ack-ack
-
Historical insignificance as you put it is not the reason why the B-29 isn't in game, nor would I consider the plane that dropped two atomic bombs during war time to be 'historically insignificant'.
ack-ack
OK. I'll bite. Why isn't the B-29 in the game?
It would probably be unbalancing, but the same can be said for the 262.
Has there been anything official on the B-29?
It is not on my wish list. I am curious.
-
I think it would end up being the most common bomber flown due to defense and pay load. currenly if you want large payload you pay the price of not having a belly gun.
-
I think they'd be fun to include. Perk the hell out of it so there is something to do with bomber perks and then reduce the perk on and expand bases of Komets :) Being perked, you might actually see people landing bombers after a strike.
-
There are other reasons the 29 isn't in game.
If you could give me all of Hitechs reasoning's that would be nice I've been looking for them on the boards but can't find him saying anything on it I'm probably not looking hard enough.
-
OK. I'll bite. Why isn't the B-29 in the game?
It would probably be unbalancing, but the same can be said for the 262.
Has there been anything official on the B-29?
It is not on my wish list. I am curious.
The 262 contributed less to the war than the B-29, why have it if you dont have the other?
-
It would probably be unbalancing, but the same can be said for the 262.
Has there been anything official on the B-29?
Search back a few years (about 6 or 7 years) for Pyro's post and you'll read why it isn't in game. It's due to balancing issues, at least according to Pyro's post. It would render the other bombers in the game hanger queens.
ack-ack
-
I believe that is a mistaken thought. By all rights the bigger bombers should have made the Ju87 a hangar queen and yet we still see them. If the ENY of the B-29 makes perk farming with it impossible then the other bombers will still fly. A hefty perk value can go a long way in that department.
-
Like the 262 renders everything a hangar queen :headscratch:
-
Search back a few years (about 6 or 7 years) for Pyro's post and you'll read why it isn't in game. It's due to balancing issues, at least according to Pyro's post. It would render the other bombers in the game hanger queens.
ack-ack
even if we had the B-29 it wouldn't make up for the IL-2 in tank killing and it doesn't climb like a B-17 so I'd still use it for short range bombings but with the new strat system i think it would be well suited for long range runs I can do without the CFCS controlled guns
-
even if we had the B-29 it wouldn't make up for the IL-2 in tank killing and it doesn't climb like a B-17 so I'd still use it for short range bombings but with the new strat system i think it would be well suited for long range runs I can do without the CFCS controlled guns
The IL2 and the B-29 hardly compare, so using that as a comparison as to why other bombers wouldn't be rendered hanger queens isn't valid.
B-29 carries a larger payload and carries more of it and would be the fastest piston engine bomber in game, don't kid yourself if you don't think it would be selected over any other bomber, regardless of the mission.
I believe that is a mistaken thought. By all rights the bigger bombers should have made the Ju87 a hangar queen and yet we still see them. If the ENY of the B-29 makes perk farming with it impossible then the other bombers will still fly. A hefty perk value can go a long way in that department.
Hefty perk cost will only hinder those that haven't been playing that long. There is a very large group of players with enough bomber perks that they can fly the B-29 exclusively and lose them every flight for as long as they play.
ack-ack
-
Bring them on! Great fighter perks killing B-29s! :aok
-
The IL2 and the B-29 hardly compare, so using that as a comparison as to why other bombers wouldn't be rendered hanger queens isn't valid.
B-29 carries a larger payload and carries more of it and would be the fastest piston engine bomber in game, don't kid yourself if you don't think it would be selected over any other bomber, regardless of the mission.
Hefty perk cost will only hinder those that haven't been playing that long. There is a very large group of players with enough bomber perks that they can fly the B-29 exclusively and lose them every flight for as long as they play.
ack-ack
Here's an example I like to take bombers down the enemy coast and hit the radar since I don't waste the time climbing a lancasters up to 15,000 feet to do so, so I'll take B-17's up and across the water and be up there in no time why waste a B-29 to do a simple run like taking out ordinance or dar.
-
Because players that do it in a B-29 will get there faster with more bombs and probably a better chance at surviving than someone in a B-17 because of the faster speed and superior defensive armament.
ack-ack
-
Because players that do it in a B-29 will get there faster with more bombs and probably a better chance at surviving than someone in a B-17 because of the faster speed and superior defensive armament.
ack-ack
Now according to Wikipedia they have the same climb rate but is that empty or heavy?
-
Now according to Wikipedia they have the same climb rate but is that empty or heavy?
The B-29's cruising speed is around 220-225mph and maximum speed is around 350mph compared to 182mph and 287mph for the B-17. Even though both have approximately the same climb rate, the B-29 will get you to the target faster, with more bombs and with superior defensive armament, probably to the target intact.
Again, thinking that the B-29 will not render any of the other piston engine bombers hanger queens is a little naive. Why up something else if the B-29 can get you there faster, with more bombs and a better chance of survival? If someone decides to take the B-29 up to altitude, it will be virtually untouchable.
ack-ack
-
The B-29's cruising speed is around 220-225mph and maximum speed is around 350mph compared to 182mph and 287mph for the B-17. Even though both have approximately the same climb rate, the B-29 will get you to the target faster, with more bombs and with superior defensive armament, probably to the target intact.
Again, thinking that the B-29 will not render any of the other piston engine bombers hanger queens is a little naive. Why up something else if the B-29 can get you there faster, with more bombs and a better chance of survival? If someone decides to take the B-29 up to altitude, it will be virtually untouchable.
ack-ack
I understand what you are saying, and it's already been brought up, but why isn't the 262 extremely popular making all the other piston planes hanger queens?
-
I understand what you are saying, and it's already been brought up, but why isn't the 262 extremely popular making all the other piston planes hanger queens?
Because the ME 262 isn't all that easy to get kills in for the average player. If you notice those (like Grizz) that repeatedly land multiple kills in the ME 262 are amongst your more experienced pilots in the game and have become a pretty good shot with the 30mm cannon. If the ME 262's cannons had say the same ballistic properties of the Browning .50s, then you'd see more people in them because it would easier to score kills.
Also, there was a bug for a long time in the ME 262 where you blew up if you pulled more than a certain amount of Gs, that kept a lot from flying it. Now, it's the crappy ballistics on the 30mm cannon that keeps the majority from flying it other than an occasional hop or two every few tours.
ack-ack
-
The B-29's cruising speed is around 220-225mph and maximum speed is around 350mph compared to 182mph and 287mph for the B-17. Even though both have approximately the same climb rate, the B-29 will get you to the target faster, with more bombs and with superior defensive armament, probably to the target intact.
Again, thinking that the B-29 will not render any of the other piston engine bombers hanger queens is a little naive. Why up something else if the B-29 can get you there faster, with more bombs and a better chance of survival? If someone decides to take the B-29 up to altitude, it will be virtually untouchable.
ack-ack
yes but what I was asking is a B-29 with a 20,000lb payload would climb at the same rate as a B-17 with a 6,000lb payload
-
So how many bomber perks do you ya'll have?
-
So how many bomber perks do you ya'll have?
probably around the 50k mark after a few years of none use.
ack-ack
-
So how many bomber perks do you ya'll have?
around 120 not sure right now
-
A little over 2000 perks for me. I dont think TIME is an issue in bombers ever and it certainly isnt part of SCORE like it is in fighters or vehicles. I think it would be a lot more like the strats system we have now where people check it out right after it is released and then they get back to business as usual. It IS more difficult to shoot down when its up high but down low... take another bomber because its advantages are gone. Most bomber missions in the game are still low altitude and using a B-29 might make sense if its free. Perk it and it will be at higher altitude.
-
Ack-ack, is that how many you have or are you speculating to other players?
-
Ack-ack, is that how many you have or are you speculating to other players?
It's what I have but then it's been accumulating for 9 years with nothing to spend it on. I'm there are dozens upon dozens of other players that have far more bomber perks than what I have collected over the years.
ack-ack
-
So a few dozen players take a few months to blow through their bomber perks..
So what?
Worst reason not to add an aircraft ever.
-
Who said about perks being the reason not to add the B-29?
ack-ack
-
Again, thinking that the B-29 will not render any of the other piston engine bombers hanger queens is a little naive
What stops the Tempest and 262 from rendering everything else useless applies here.
"but everyone has 2948103821-38x10e4 bomber perks!, we'll never see the end of them!"
Then jack up the perk cost initially and drop it once everyone's had their fun.
-
So how many bomber perks do you ya'll have?
It wouldn't climb or cruise as fast with a 20,000lb payload when your flying a B17 your cruise speed increases as your drop ord you won't get there as fast but you'll get away faster now you may have 50k bomber points but not everyone does I can't afford a formation of ar234's so if it cost more I may only be able to afford a single.
-
It wouldn't climb or cruise as fast with a 20,000lb payload when your flying a B17 your cruise speed increases as your drop ord you won't get there as fast but you'll get away faster now you may have 50k bomber points but not everyone does I can't afford a formation of ar234's so if it cost more I may only be able to afford a single.
Fully loaded, the B-29 was faster than the B-17 fully loaded. You are really kidding yourself if you think the B-17 would beat the B-29 to the target.
ack-ack
-
What stops the Tempest and 262 from rendering everything else useless applies here.
There're many facets of fighter capabilities. Speed, armament, durability, maneuverability, range... through an entire spectrum of speeds altitudes and situations. Beside speed and maybe range the 262 is among the worst in the game in all of those categories, including armament when you consider the battery of MK 108's effectiveness in a dogfight.
The Tempest is quite a good, well balanced aircraft, maneuverable, durable, great guns fast... short range maybe...
The thing is, that with fighters you need to engage the enemy... in any situation where you're killing you're vulnerable to be killed.
Bombers are a completely different ball game... speed, defensive firepower, range, durability and payload are the only things that matter. The B29 would be the best in the game at all of those categories by a significant margin.
Also bombers do not have to make themselves vulnerable to drop their ordinance, beside a 1-2 mph loss from the bomb bay doors opening....
-
Let's say the B-29 was brought in with these stipulations.
1. Can only launch from certain rear airfields (like the 163).
2. Perked in the 300-500 range (at least in the first few months).
Would this not solve most problems? Very few are going to take the plane hundreds of miles (espeically on large maps) to do an noe or even low level run. They want to get their fast and get out, that's your point right. Even someone with thousands and thousands of bomber perks would be hesitant to take up a formation that could cost them 1500 in the end. If they were extremely aggressive those thousands of points would burn up quickly anyway.
-
Fully loaded, the B-29 was faster than the B-17 fully loaded. You are really kidding yourself if you think the B-17 would beat the B-29 to the target.
ack-ack
But when fully loaded it would take longer to get it to 40,000 feet, then sure the 38mph faster would catch you up but when? once you got there you'd have more bombs and would get away faster why wouldn't you want that?
-
Let's say the B-29 was brought in with these stipulations.
1. Can only launch from certain rear airfields (like the 163).
2. Perked in the 300-500 range (at least in the first few months).
Would this not solve most problems? Very few are going to take the plane hundreds of miles (espeically on large maps) to do an noe or even low level run. They want to get their fast and get out, that's your point right. Even someone with thousands and thousands of bomber perks would be hesitant to take up a formation that could cost them 1500 in the end. If they were extremely aggressive those thousands of points would burn up quickly anyway.
But what about people like me who cant afford that? (I know "first few months")
-
But what about people like me who cant afford that? (I know "first few months")
Earn bomber perks, just like you have to earn perks for other planes.
-
Earn bomber perks, just like you have to earn perks for other planes.
Yes I know a stupid comment to make I could just go offline to fly it.
-
But when fully loaded it would take longer to get it to 40,000 feet, then sure the 38mph faster would catch you up but when? once you got there you'd have more bombs and would get away faster why wouldn't you want that?
When fully loaded with bombs and fuel, the B-17G (the B-17 we have in game) was capable of a climb rate of 200ft per minute, the B-29 carrying full internal load (20,000lb) had a climb rate of around 900ft per minute. Like I said, why take the B-17 when the B-29 can get you there faster and with more bombs?
ack-ack
-
When fully loaded with bombs and fuel, the B-17G (the B-17 we have in game) was capable of a climb rate of 200ft per minute, the B-29 carrying full internal load (20,000lb) had a climb rate of around 900ft per minute. Like I said, why take the B-17 when the B-29 can get you there faster and with more bombs?
ack-ack
200ft per minute? The B-17G climbs faster than that at least in the game that and where are you getting your information?
-
... Because maybe it can't FIT?!
The number one reason for the lack of a B29 is that it simply won't fit. Literally. The runways are not large enough to accommodate a B29 on takeoff. Taking off a fully loaded Ar-234 with no RATO is a cakewalk compared to what it would take to get a '29 in the air. Those things need a runway at least a mile long. We'd have to modify EVERY map in the game.
-
... Because maybe it can't FIT?!
The number one reason for the lack of a B29 is that it simply won't fit. Literally. The runways are not large enough to accommodate a B29 on takeoff. Taking off a fully loaded Ar-234 with no RATO is a cakewalk compared to what it would take to get a '29 in the air. Those things need a runway at least a mile long. We'd have to modify EVERY map in the game.
Unless it wasn't accessible at every field, yes you'd have to modify all the maps, but just a few fields. Do you really think that is the biggest reason? I understand there are many reasons, but do you really think that just having to make runways longer is the biggest one? HTC just built a huge city, I think they can add a gray rectangle to the end of another gray rectangle.
-
It could be extra special like the me163 and take off from the back of the map or have things like extra large airfields.
-
not to mention in the work put into the B29, HiTech could introduce several other aircraft in the same timeframe
-
not to mention in the work put into the B29, HiTech could introduce several other aircraft in the same timeframe
I believe this is one of the biggest reasons we don't have the B-29, and I'm fine with that. Sure I'd like to see the B-29 in the game eventually, but I understand there are many other aircraft that should be introduced before it.
-
I believe this is one of the biggest reasons we don't have the B-29, and I'm fine with that. Sure I'd like to see the B-29 in the game eventually, but I understand there are many other aircraft that should be introduced before it.
Yeah he could, he could put in a whole arena oh wait....
-
Come on, I for one would enjoy watching B-29s suicide bomb task groups.
-
Well I'm going to try to get away from the B-29 thing and on to the prototypes. The Germans built an me 163 with retractable gear didn't quite make combat but was built during the war.
Junkers Ju 287 made three prototypes and some parts came from a B-24 liberator,and carried around 8000lbs of ord, I just think planes like this would be nice to have even if it was once a month and expensive.
-
There're many facets of fighter capabilities. Speed, armament, durability, maneuverability, range... through an entire spectrum of speeds altitudes and situations. Beside speed and maybe range the 262 is among the worst in the game in all of those categories, including armament when you consider the battery of MK 108's effectiveness in a dogfight.
The Tempest is quite a good, well balanced aircraft, maneuverable, durable, great guns fast... short range maybe...
The thing is, that with fighters you need to engage the enemy... in any situation where you're killing you're vulnerable to be killed.
Bombers are a completely different ball game... speed, defensive firepower, range, durability and payload are the only things that matter. The B29 would be the best in the game at all of those categories by a significant margin.
Also bombers do not have to make themselves vulnerable to drop their ordinance, beside a 1-2 mph loss from the bomb bay doors opening....
I'm glad someone gets it. :salute
-
just out of interest, how many 29s were shot down by enemy aircraft, and which types?
-
just out of interest, how many 29s were shot down by enemy aircraft, and which types?
From:http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-29-losses-4429.html (http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/aviation/b-29-losses-4429.html)
20th Bomber Command
80 total, with 22 due to fighters, 7 from AAA and 51 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 70 total, with 20 due to fighters, 5 from AAA and 45 from "other"
1945 10 total, with 2 due to fighters, 2 from AAA and 6 from "other"
21st Bomber Command
334 total, with 52 due to fighters, 47 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 216 from "other"
breakdown by year is:
1944 25 total, with 4 due to fighters, 1 from AAA, and 20 from "other"
1945 309 total, with 48 due to fighters, 46 from AAA, 19 from fighter/AAA and 196from "other"
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-296.html (http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/archive/index.php?t-296.html)
There's always wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-29_Superfortress).
wrongway
-
yeah theres always wiki, but the guys on this forum can usually come up with a wider and more interesting range of sources, like you did :)
looks like we need a few more jap fighters to match up with the 29 if we ever get it, particularly the ki-45 with the Schrage Musik type cannons or the fwd firing tank gun. might be fun to try occasionally, like the wgrs on the 110.
the reason I ask is that my impression was that the 29s were practically untouchable IRL, so probably would be ingame too. since this game is basically about combat there doesnt seem much point adding aircraft which wont ever get engaged in combat, I suspect this is one reason why the 29 is down the list of aircraft to be added.
-
What is surprising about those stats is the ratio between losses from being shot down and 'other'.
ack-ack
-
yeah 65% "other", presumably mechanical/pilot/planning errors. suggests the 29s were practically untouchable, as you'd expect from the specs and mission profiles.
-
There was an ME 262 with a 50mm cannon on the nose now who wouldn't want that :D
-
make it only flyable from LARGE airfields with a hefty perk cost and no nuke.
just like every other plane added people will fly the crap out of it for a week or so and it will taper off and find it niche after that.
only allowing it from large airfields will make other bombers more competitive against it considering availability.
plus it will get more people IN bombers (more targets) trying to earn perks to buy it, so more strat runs to intercept which.. I for one.. always enjoy.
-
make it only flyable from LARGE airfields with a hefty perk cost and no nuke.
just like every other plane added people will fly the crap out of it for a week or so and it will taper off and find it niche after that.
only allowing it from large airfields will make other bombers more competitive against it considering availability.
plus it will get more people IN bombers (more targets) trying to earn perks to buy it, so more strat runs to intercept which.. I for one.. always enjoy.
I am trying to earn perks for a 262 so a high perk bomber would give me something to work for :headscratch:
-
I am trying to earn perks for a 262 so a high perk bomber would give me something to work for :headscratch:
lots of people fly otherwise rare high ENY fighters to earn more perk points faster to be able fly the perked fighters more and sooner.
right now there is nothing in the bomber department worth buying.. the 234 is very limited in its abilities.. VERY.. so even people who drive buffs primarly see no value in it (see " I have 5k bomber points because there is nothing to spend them on)
the B29 might get more people into the 88s, 87s and other high OBJ bombers.
you woould probably see MORE variaty in the bombers being flown if they put in the 29, not less.
more strat runs to intercept aswell probably, more bombers hitting towns instead of dropping hangars.. etc etc
-
lots of people fly otherwise rare high ENY fighters to earn more perk points faster to be able fly the perked fighters more and sooner.
right now there is nothing in the bomber department worth buying.. the 234 is very limited in its abilities.. VERY.. so even people who drive buffs primarly see no value in it (see " I have 5k bomber points because there is nothing to spend them on)
the B29 might get more people into the 88s, 87s and other high OBJ bombers.
you woould probably see MORE variaty in the bombers being flown if they put in the 29, not less.
more strat runs to intercept aswell probably, more bombers hitting towns instead of dropping hangars.. etc etc
:aok don't really like the 234 hard to defend yourself without just running away I hold onto my RATO's if I can, when I fly it on rare occasion they had prototype Arados I liked more more bombs better defensive armament like the Ju-287 V1 and V2 (V2 finally flew in 1947 after the Russians got ahold of it and most of the the design team so i guess the V2 is russian lol) not sure what the guns where but it had a higher payload 8,000 pounds I believe.
-
... Because maybe it can't FIT?!
The number one reason for the lack of a B29 is that it simply won't fit. Literally. The runways are not large enough to accommodate a B29 on takeoff. Taking off a fully loaded Ar-234 with no RATO is a cakewalk compared to what it would take to get a '29 in the air. Those things need a runway at least a mile long. We'd have to modify EVERY map in the game.
The diagonal runways are not one mile, currently they are 1.4 miles or 7,400 feet.
Strip
-
i would like to see what a mk108 would do to a pressurized aircraft at 35k ...
of course that would mean that the operational altitudes and climb rates would need to be correct
i haven't explored that at these altitudes ...
-
The diagonal runways are not one mile, currently they are 1.4 miles or 7,400 feet.
Strip
and it's a computer game he can make the B29 turn on it's axis or get off the runway in 5 feet (not saying i want it just saying he could).
-
The IL2 and the B-29 hardly compare, so using that as a comparison as to why other bombers wouldn't be rendered hanger queens isn't valid.
B-29 carries a larger payload and carries more of it and would be the fastest piston engine bomber in game, don't kid yourself if you don't think it would be selected over any other bomber, regardless of the mission.
Hefty perk cost will only hinder those that haven't been playing that long. There is a very large group of players with enough bomber perks that they can fly the B-29 exclusively and lose them every flight for as long as they play.
ack-ack
There is always a way to deal with everything. The b29 would obviously be a perk plane to regulate its' demand. Does the 262, tempest or Arado render all others hanger queens? Obviously not. While the perk system as implemented is half baked it does work in this regard.
Given the huge number of perks built up through the useless bomber perks, the plane could be released at a very high perk to burn those down and over time, adjusted to a more realistic level.
There are always ways to fix problems.
-
i would like to see what a mk108 would do to a pressurized aircraft at 35k ...
of course that would mean that the operational altitudes and climb rates would need to be correct
i haven't explored that at these altitudes ...
Semi thread-jack.
thorsim brings up something I've always wondered about. What did a 20mm or even a .30cal bullet do to a pressurized bomber at 20K+ feet?
I mean, the crew is flying in shirtsleeves. No heavy flight gear or oxygen masks. What did they do if hit, or even if under attack?
wrongway
-
i would like to see what a mk108 would do to a pressurized aircraft at 35k ...
of course that would mean that the operational altitudes and climb rates would need to be correct
i haven't explored that at these altitudes ...
If we get it you'll find out when i get a B25H up there :rock
-
It seems like in the end this debate came down to, people have to many bomber perks to allow us to introduce the B29.
Well reset bomber perks down to 500 max and then introduce it as a 200 point perk.
You would see a huge INCREASE in the use of other bombers while people try to get enough perks to fly it. Far from the other bombers being hanger queens they will see increased use.
Everyone who has 50 000 bomber perks would cry that they lost their perks that they never use..too bad. Bring on the HE177 as well.
The only good reason not to introduce this plane is 999000.
-
It seems like in the end this debate came down to, people have to many bomber perks to allow us to introduce the B29.
Well reset bomber perks down to 500 max and then introduce it as a 200 point perk.
You would see a huge INCREASE in the use of other bombers while people try to get enough perks to fly it. Far from the other bombers being hanger queens they will see increased use.
Everyone who has 50 000 bomber perks would cry that they lost their perks that they never use..too bad. Bring on the HE177 as well.
The only good reason not to introduce this plane is 999000.
999000? Missed something there. Just introduce it with 200 perk cost per bomber and 20,000 pounds of bombs should be plenty to do what you need to do and for those who need more, they can cough up 600 perks for a formation. I have around 150 bomber perks I can earn my way to 200 no reason to take away perk points from people make it cost a percentage of there perks instead.
-
It seems like in the end this debate came down to, people have to many bomber perks to allow us to introduce the B29.
Well reset bomber perks down to 500 max and then introduce it as a 200 point perk.
You would see a huge INCREASE in the use of other bombers while people try to get enough perks to fly it. Far from the other bombers being hanger queens they will see increased use.
Everyone who has 50 000 bomber perks would cry that they lost their perks that they never use..too bad. Bring on the HE177 as well.
The only good reason not to introduce this plane is 999000.
No, those of us that opposed to adding the B-29 now (over other much needed planes) is that the B-29 would render all other heavy bombers in the game as hanger queens. Those in favor of adding the B-29 now have been trying to use the argument that you can perk the B-29 to limit its use but it's been pointed out that high perk price won't turn people away, especially those with tens of thousands of bomber perks.
ack-ack
-
I'd like to offer a few points to consider;
1.) With the old ordnance model it was impossible to have the proper number of "hard points" for the B-29 to be correct without a lot of additional workarounds.
2.) I don't think the "it will make other bombers hanger queens" is valid. Sure for the first week or two people will burn through the bomber perks like crazy, but in the long run (with the proper perk value assigned) it wouldn't be any different than the Me 262 is today.
3.) 999000 is a deadly accurate gunner in bombers, not a proposed perk value. :aok
But the main point I want to make is this;
Given the limited resources that HTC has to work with, (i.e. small company) there are many other projects that I think deserve to be addressed before any time is spent developing the B-29. Of course they may feel differently, who knows? :)
-
and it's a computer game he can make the B29 turn on it's axis or get off the runway in 5 feet (not saying i want it just saying he could).
You haven't been paying attention.
-
You haven't been paying attention.
umm started the thread. he could do it if he wanted, not saying he should, would or wants to, be he can make these planes do anything he's not limited by a runway.
-
Sorry I wasn't clear. I meant it seems you haven't noticed what he is limited by.
Edit: A self imposed limit is still a limit. Your point that I responded to is illustrated by the evil con mission aircraft. My point is illustrated by the fact that you can only fly those aircraft in the evil con mission.
-
No, those of us that opposed to adding the B-29 now (over other much needed planes) is that the B-29 would render all other heavy bombers in the game as hanger queens. Those in favor of adding the B-29 now have been trying to use the argument that you can perk the B-29 to limit its use but it's been pointed out that high perk price won't turn people away, especially those with tens of thousands of bomber perks.
ack-ack
And I fully refuted that whole argument.
All you are left with is that you don't want the B29. And that is fine. But thats all it is.
I wont post it again, feel free to actually read my post if you like.
-
Back to the prototypes The Gloster Meteor F.4 it featured the Derwent 5 engines and the clipped wings, a stronger airframe, a fully pressurized cockpit, lighter ailerons to improve maneuverability, and rudder trim adjustments to reduce snaking. The F.4 could also be fitted with a drop tank under each wing, and experiments were performed with carriage of underwing stores. Built July 1945 just before the end of the war.
-
Just curious how long you think it would take to model just one aircraft?
-
A bomber like that will be about 5 fighters work. All the gun postions, etc. It is allot of work. that will only matter to guys who like to fight bombers and will be hated by everyone that wishes all bombers where just easy targets like the Lanc is.
But it is certainly more work.
This one also has remote controlled gun turrets that might need some specific main engine code changes apart from any new model issue. Fast plane with 20 mm tail gun and bristling with 50s. It will be a nightmare to intercept. But so what. It is actually the type of bomber that belongs in the MA.
-
If HTC installed 29's folks would have fun with them.
-
I don't believe the development of the B-29 would be much different than other heavies already in game. Weapon's data is already there, flight model a is probably a standard fill-in-the-data template. Developing the 3D model, interiors, etc., would be the biggest hurdle.
Perking them makes sense, rear bases launches make sense...so to limit the Uber-ability of the plane, don't make it a formation bomber, make it a stand-alone single.
Does it perform, yes. Will Brewsters and Spit 16s catch them? Not if they're up in the statosphere. However, historically, B-29 accuracy was horrible at high altitude because of the environmental effects on the bombs as they fell. The higher you go, the less accurate the payload delivery. Lower altitude, you increase the chances of interception.
The Ta-152 was designed to be a high-altitude interceptor, its purpose was to kill bombers. 262s and 163s would have something worth climbing to alt to intercept. The uber-defensive abilities of the 29 are effectively countered by the speed of the 262 and 163, and the size of the 163 as a target, especially if its a single aircraft. A single B-29 would carry less than formation of Lancs, although it would be higher and faster.
I like the idea of a prototype '45 arena, even if on a limited basis. P-51H, XP-47H, XP-72, A7M Reppu, F2G Corsair, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, Meteor, P-80, P-40Q, MB.5, Supermarine Spiteful, etc. I do however, agree that more additions should be made to the existing plane and GV set before we start looking at what-if scenarios.
What it boils down to really - any aircraft can be added to the game. HTC has the ability to impose whatever limitations it wants to make the aircraft viable. Thinking that the '29 would alter the game so dramatically to influence gameplay is wrong - HTC has the ability to control all aspects of balance, from the micro to macro levels. Us relying on a 2 year old post from a staffer is also not much - requirements and demands and priorities change almost daily - not only from the stuff we don't see or hear about from within the company, but from who they're competing with in the market, player requests and demands, the implementation of new technologies, maintenance of the existing platform and future, heavy-duty changes that might be coming down the pike. While I would like to see strategic bombing improved in this game, the overwhelming majority of the players in this game operate under 10K.
-
I don't believe the development of the B-29 would be much different than other heavies already in game. Weapon's data is already there, flight model a is probably a standard fill-in-the-data template. Developing the 3D model, interiors, etc., would be the biggest hurdle.
Perking them makes sense, rear bases launches make sense...so to limit the Uber-ability of the plane, don't make it a formation bomber, make it a stand-alone single.
Does it perform, yes. Will Brewsters and Spit 16s catch them? Not if they're up in the statosphere. However, historically, B-29 accuracy was horrible at high altitude because of the environmental effects on the bombs as they fell. The higher you go, the less accurate the payload delivery. Lower altitude, you increase the chances of interception.
The Ta-152 was designed to be a high-altitude interceptor, its purpose was to kill bombers. 262s and 163s would have something worth climbing to alt to intercept. The uber-defensive abilities of the 29 are effectively countered by the speed of the 262 and 163, and the size of the 163 as a target, especially if its a single aircraft. A single B-29 would carry less than formation of Lancs, although it would be higher and faster.
I like the idea of a prototype '45 arena, even if on a limited basis. P-51H, XP-47H, XP-72, A7M Reppu, F2G Corsair, F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, Meteor, P-80, P-40Q, MB.5, Supermarine Spiteful, etc. I do however, agree that more additions should be made to the existing plane and GV set before we start looking at what-if scenarios.
What it boils down to really - any aircraft can be added to the game. HTC has the ability to impose whatever limitations it wants to make the aircraft viable. Thinking that the '29 would alter the game so dramatically to influence gameplay is wrong - HTC has the ability to control all aspects of balance, from the micro to macro levels. Us relying on a 2 year old post from a staffer is also not much - requirements and demands and priorities change almost daily - not only from the stuff we don't see or hear about from within the company, but from who they're competing with in the market, player requests and demands, the implementation of new technologies, maintenance of the existing platform and future, heavy-duty changes that might be coming down the pike. While I would like to see strategic bombing improved in this game, the overwhelming majority of the players in this game operate under 10K.
Very well written. But I disagree on it being treated different why shouldn't it have a formation, would put a bigger dent in the HQ or the city. and we are having a what if scenario it's already started.
-
The biggest complaint I've heard about implementing the B-29 is the fact that its the pinnacle of WW2 aircraft development in terms of bombers. When you consider the lineage of the B-29...the follow-ons were the B-36, B-47, then B-52. I could include the B-58 in there but that's a bird of a different color.
So the argument is - it carries too much, too fast, too high, and has too much defensive firepower. So you reduce that firepower and payload by 66%. At that point, within the existing structure of the game and planeset, you have your 'balance' that people are so concerned about.
I agree with the skeptics, that a 3-plane formation of B-29s, at 30,000ft AGL and 300mph IAS, is a tough nut to crack with anything but a 163 or 262. The biggest gripe is lack of early warning. A smart bomber pilot will fly outside the dar circles, so unless you have a point interceptor, by the time you reach 30,000ft. in your Ta-152, they're long gone.
I can easily see both sides of the argument here, and believe me, I'd love to be part of a 30-plane ThundrEgg B-29 mission to the enemy capital. But I can also understand the difficulty in intercepting that same formation. The overwhelming majority of players are going to simply shrug it off because its too daunting a task.