Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: olds442 on September 17, 2011, 02:09:27 PM
-
i mean please its a german BOMBA......
Technical Data
Origin: Ernst Heinkel AG, also built by Arado Flugzeugwerke.
Type: He177, six seat heavy-bomber and missle carrier
Engines: Two 2,950hp Daimler-Benz DB 610A-1/B-1, each comprising two inverted-vee-12 liquid-cooled engines geared to one propellor.
Dimensions: Span 103ft 1 3/4 in (31.44m); length 72ft 2in (22m); height 21ft (6.4m)
Weights: Empty 37,038lb (16,800kg); loaded (A-5) 68,343lb (31,000kg)
Performance: Maximum speed (at 41,000lb) 295mph (472 km/h); initial climb 853ft (260m)/min; service ceiling 26,500ft (7080m); range with FX or Hs293 missles (no bombs) about 3,107 miles (5000km)
Armament: (A-5/R-2) one 7.92mm MG 81J manually aimed in nose, one MG131 in forward dorsal turret, one MG 131 in rear dorsal turret, one MG 151 manually aimed in the tail and two MG 81 or one MG 131 manually aimed at rear of gondola; maximum internal bombload 13,200lb (6000kg), seldom carried. External load: two Hs293 guided missiles, FX 1400 guided bombs, mines or torpedoes (more if internal bay blanked off and racks added below it.)
Users: Germany (Luftwaffe)
:noid
:noid
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
:noid
:noid
-
It was a complete piece of junk. Arguably the worst aircraft program of WWII to actually reach production.
The Ju188 or Do217 would make much better additions.
They are also German bombers.
-
the HE-111 would be a much better choice over the HE-177. the 177 was a flying metal deathtrap. it sucked so bad a male stripper would look at it and say "damn!"
-1 to HE-177
+1 to a HE-111
-
HE111
-
If karnak had his way, aces high would only have 4 airplanes.
-
If karnak had his way, aces high would only have 4 airplanes.
Have you ever seen the lists I suggested in the past?
If I had my way we'd have dozens more than if we went with the "This looks powerful" crowd. Point here, he suggested one airplane, I suggested two better ones.
-
If karnak had his way, aces high would only have 4 airplanes.
Change that "only have 4 airplanes" to "only have british&german airplanes" and you'd be correct.
come at me Karnak. :angel:
-
aside from special events or early war arena he111 will be a hanger queen
ju188 or do217 would be better fits
-
Change that "only have 4 airplanes" to "only have british&german airplanes" and you'd be correct.
come at me Karnak. :angel:
I respectully disagree. Karnak has advocated for more Japanese, Russian and Italian aircraft on many occasions. I do not always agree with Karnak, but he does present well thought out arguments regarding his opinions on what should or should not be added to the game.
-
Have you ever seen the lists I suggested in the past?
If I had my way we'd have dozens more than if we went with the "This looks powerful" crowd. Point here, he suggested one airplane, I suggested two better ones.
I was kidding............I guess I could have put a smiley face to ack as a form of internet mentos but I don't believe in emoticons.
Next time I will just say......"kidding" at the end.
-
Change that "only have 4 airplanes" to "only have british&german airplanes" and you'd be correct.
come at me Karnak. :angel:
That is also an odd accusation as I have advocated very strongly for Japanese aircraft. In fact, my preferences when playing are British and Japanese fighters. I generally don't advocate for American or German aircraft due to the dominance in their plane sets. I also don't advocate for British aircraft much in the last five years or so for the same reason. I do think we need more Russian and Japanese aircraft, as well as a few Italian and French aircraft.
What I focus on though are gap fillers and things that actually played a significant role in WWII. Given the choice of the He177A-5, G.55 and Re.2005 I would pick the He177A-5 as it was more significant than the other two combined, but I wouldn't like that list of choices.
Things that I would like to see:
A-26 American For MA use
B6N2 Japanese Gap filler
B-17E or B-17F American Gap filler
Beaufighter Mk VI British Gap filler
Beaufighter Mk 21 British Gap filler, MA use
Bf109G-6/AS German Gap filler
Blenheim Mk I British Gap filler
C.200 Italian Gap filler
CR.42 Italian Gap filler
D4Y1 or D4Y2 Japanese Gap filler, MA use
D.520 French Gap filler
DB-3B Russian Gap filler
Do217E-2 German Gap filler, MA use
Fw190A-2 German Gap filler
G.50 Italian Gap filler
G.55 Italian MA use
H8K2 Japanese Gap filler, MA use
Hawk 75 French Gap filler
He111H-6 German Gap filler
I-153 Russian Gap filler
J2M3 Japanese Gap filler
J2M5 Japanese MA use
Ju-52 German Gap filler
Ju87G-1 German MA use
Ju88G-7 German MA use
Ju188A-1 German Gap filler, MA use
Ki-43-I Japanese Gap filler
Ki-43-II Japanese Gap filler
Ki-43-III Japanese Gap filler, MA use
Ki-44-II Japanese Gap filler, MA use
Ki-45 Japanese Gap filler
Ki-61-I Japanese Gap filler
Ki-61-I-Ko Japanese Gap filler
Ki-61-II or Ki-100 Japanese MA use
LaGG-3 Russian Gap filler
La-5 Russian Gap filler
Me410A or Me410B German MA use
MiG-3 Russian Gap filler
Mosquito Mk II British Gap filler
Mosquito Mk IV British Gap filler
Mosquito Mk 30 British MA use
N1K1-J Japanese Gap filler, MA use
P-61B American MA use
PBY-5 American Gap filler
Pe-2 Russian Gap filler
Pe-2FT Russian Gap filler
Pe-2B Russian Gap filler, MA use
SB2C American MA use
Seafire Mk III British Gap filler, MA use
SM.79-II Italian Gap filler
Sunderland Mk III British Gap filler, MA use
TBD American Gap filler
Tu-2 Russian Gap filler, MA use
Wellington Mk III British Gap filler
Yak-1 Russian Gap filler
Yak-3 Russian Gap filler, MA use
Yak-7 Russian Gap filler
Obviously this laundry list is a pipe dream, so like everyone else I try to suggest what I think are the most important additions.
Common requests I do not include on my list:
Battle - Disaster in WWII, B5N2 is an excellent stand in
Defiant - Utter disaster in WWII, almost useless in AH
Fw200 - Long range patrol bomber, low use in AH and very weak
Halifax - Too similar to the Lancaster
He177A-5 - Utter disaster in WWII, would be good to excellent in AH
Stirling - Failure in WWII, Wellington works better to cover that time
Swordfish - Sank more tonnage of shipping than any other Allied torpedo bomber. Yay! In AH it would be useful only for scenarios where it had no opposition. B5N2 is a decent stand in.
-
karnak, you forgot the StuG III and the SU-100.
:neener:
-
karnak, you forgot the StuG III and the SU-100.
:neener:
I don't do GVs. :p
-
I don't do GVs. :p
then you dont know how to have fun :lol
-
then you dont know how to have fun :lol
Agreed.
-
then you dont know how to have fun :lol
Agreed.
I didn't say I didn't use them. I just don't know enough about them to suggest which ones would be good to add. I have a few, but nothing like a complete list.
-
That is also an odd accusation as I have advocated very strongly for Japanese aircraft. In fact, my preferences when playing are British and Japanese fighters. I generally don't advocate for American or German aircraft due to the dominance in their plane sets. I also don't advocate for British aircraft much in the last five years or so for the same reason. I do think we need more Russian and Japanese aircraft, as well as a few Italian and French aircraft.
What I focus on though are gap fillers and things that actually played a significant role in WWII. Given the choice of the He177A-5, G.55 and Re.2005 I would pick the He177A-5 as it was more significant than the other two combined, but I wouldn't like that list of choices.
Things that I would like to see:
A-26 American For MA use
B6N2 Japanese Gap filler
B-17E or B-17F American Gap filler
Beaufighter Mk VI British Gap filler
Beaufighter Mk 21 British Gap filler, MA use
Bf109G-6/AS German Gap filler
Blenheim Mk I British Gap filler
C.200 Italian Gap filler
CR.42 Italian Gap filler
D4Y1 or D4Y2 Japanese Gap filler, MA use
D.520 French Gap filler
DB-3B Russian Gap filler
Do217E-2 German Gap filler, MA use
Fw190A-2 German Gap filler
G.50 Italian Gap filler
G.55 Italian MA use
H8K2 Japanese Gap filler, MA use
Hawk 75 French Gap filler
He111H-6 German Gap filler
I-153 Russian Gap filler
J2M3 Japanese Gap filler
J2M5 Japanese MA use
Ju-52 German Gap filler
Ju87G-1 German MA use
Ju88G-7 German MA use
Ju188A-1 German Gap filler, MA use
Ki-43-I Japanese Gap filler
Ki-43-II Japanese Gap filler
Ki-43-III Japanese Gap filler, MA use
Ki-44-II Japanese Gap filler, MA use
Ki-45 Japanese Gap filler
Ki-61-I Japanese Gap filler
Ki-61-I-Ko Japanese Gap filler
Ki-61-II or Ki-100 Japanese MA use
LaGG-3 Russian Gap filler
La-5 Russian Gap filler
Me410A or Me410B German MA use
MiG-3 Russian Gap filler
Mosquito Mk II British Gap filler
Mosquito Mk IV British Gap filler
Mosquito Mk 30 British MA use
N1K1-J Japanese Gap filler, MA use
P-61B American MA use
PBY-5 American Gap filler
Pe-2 Russian Gap filler
Pe-2FT Russian Gap filler
Pe-2B Russian Gap filler, MA use
SB2C American MA use
Seafire Mk III British Gap filler, MA use
SM.79-II Italian Gap filler
Sunderland Mk III British Gap filler, MA use
TBD American Gap filler
Tu-2 Russian Gap filler, MA use
Wellington Mk III British Gap filler
Yak-1 Russian Gap filler
Yak-3 Russian Gap filler, MA use
Yak-7 Russian Gap filler
Obviously this laundry list is a pipe dream, so like everyone else I try to suggest what I think are the most important additions.
Common requests I do not include on my list:
Battle - Disaster in WWII, B5N2 is an excellent stand in
Defiant - Utter disaster in WWII, almost useless in AH
Fw200 - Long range patrol bomber, low use in AH and very weak
Halifax - Too similar to the Lancaster
He177A-5 - Utter disaster in WWII, would be good to excellent in AH
Stirling - Failure in WWII, Wellington works better to cover that time
Swordfish - Sank more tonnage of shipping than any other Allied torpedo bomber. Yay! In AH it would be useful only for scenarios where it had no opposition. B5N2 is a decent stand in.
...i was kidding Karnack, only said that because you got the mossie in your pic. reason why i said "come at me" with the :angel: at the end.
-
It doesnt matter how many times you post the exactly same thing.
The result will be the same.
Cheers.
-
Agreed.
I didn't say I didn't use them. I just don't know enough about them to suggest which ones would be good to add. I have a few, but nothing like a complete list.
i wasnt implying that you dont use GV's im simply saying you dont know how to have fun if you missed the StuG III or the SU-100 in that list :banana:
-
Whether it is a hunk of junk or not is irrelevant as far as Aces High is concerned. This ain't the real world, so it's deficiencies would not be modeled anyway. It deserves inclusion. +1
-
so it's deficiencies would not be modeled anyway.
That is the specific reason I oppose it. Unlike every other aircraft we have, its deficiencies were so overwhelmingly crippling that adding it would be a farce. It likely be the best heavy bomber in AH other than the B-29, eclipsing the historical bests, the B-17, B-24 and Lancaster.
On paper, the He177A-5 gives you a bomber that is faster than the B-17, B-24 or Lancaster, much better armed than the Lancaster and carries more than twice the bomb load of the B-17.
It is possible that HTC could model it as very fragile and model the engines in such a way that they break with only slight damage. If modeled thus I would expect a lot of disappointed He177 "fans".
-
Agreed. JK GVs all die by one shot now a days i want my old gv system because cutlass beet me in a TIGER II vs my panter, must be the systems fault because i was turn the worng way....
LOL IM JK :rofl :lol :) :D ;) :P :cool: :cheers: :banana: :neener: :aok
-
LOL IM JK :rofl :lol :) :D ;) :P :cool: :cheers: :banana: :neener: :aok
wow. im 100% sure you only did that just to raise your post count. not to mention i didnt find it funny.
That is the specific reason I oppose it. Unlike every other aircraft we have, its deficiencies were so overwhelmingly crippling that adding it would be a farce. It likely be the best heavy bomber in AH other It is possible that HTC could model it as very fragile and model the engines in such a way that they break with only slight damage. If modeled thus I would expect a lot of disappointed He177 "fans".
if HTC just modeled the HE-177 to do that then its just going to be a hangar queen. if its a hangar queen then whats the point of adding it? we'd be better off with a StuG III Ausf G. or a Yak-3
my .02
-
wow. im 100% sure you only did that just to raise your post count. not to mention i didnt find it funny.if HTC just modeled the HE-177 to do that then its just going to be a hangar queen. if its a hangar queen then whats the point of adding it? we'd be better off with a StuG III Ausf G. or a Yak-3
my .02
not to mention you do not know who i im talking to, and it may be a good freind...
why dont you do as my profile picture says...
-
if HTC just modeled the HE-177 to do that then its just going to be a hangar queen. if its a hangar queen then whats the point of adding it? we'd be better off with a StuG III Ausf G. or a Yak-3
my .02
Well, there are a couple of things about your take here that I think are wrong. One, adding a unit is to add the unit, not to avoid adding a hangar queen. HTC will model it how they think it is appropriate and if it turns out to be a hangar queen, well, that is fine. Second, the He177 would probably be as much work to add as the StuG III Ausf G, Yak-3, Ki-43 and J2M3 combined.
Why it will likely be modeled as fragile:
From wikipedia, quoting sourced comments by Eric Brown:
In early September 1944, the Royal Aircraft Establishment was ordered to supply an aircrew for a He 177 that the French Maquis and Allied units in Vichy France would take control of at the airfield at Blagnac near Toulouse. A transport and two escort fighters from the RAE flew to the area to leave the Chief Test Pilot and a flight engineer with the commando group. On 10 September, the aircraft was seized and flown back to the UK. Soon afterwards, Eric Brown, a RN pilot currently posted to the RAE as a test pilot flew the He 177.[22] He wrote about the in-flight handling characteristics of the He 177 A-5:.
"...positive about all axes, but the controls were all remarkably light for such a large aircraft. Indeed I had the feeling that the elevator was dangerously light and I was all too aware of the intelligence reports of He 177s breaking up in the air so I decided to treat this control very gently... The aircraft had an automatic pull-out device and an acceleration warning apparatus fitted, but it really was nailbiting to have to treat a giant like this immense Heinkel bomber as if it was made of glass. The stalling characteristics with flaps and undercarriage lowered the aircraft buffeted violently at 140 km/h (87 mph) before the nose dropped at 135 km/h (84 mph). The buffet experienced was so violent that I had some concerns over structural damage. Somehow the He 177 always conveyed an impression of fragility despite its size."[23]
He said it was "one of the very few German aircraft of the period that I tested that I did not enjoy flying".
-
Give it a perk price. Between 30-40 would be fine I say. The bombload and speed will sure as heck won't make it a hangar queen. Although you'll see people fly it like a B29, safe and carefully, up high. It'll probably be the worst handling bomber though.
-
Well, there are a couple of things about your take here that I think are wrong. One, adding a unit is to add the unit, not to avoid adding a hangar queen. HTC will model it how they think it is appropriate and if it turns out to be a hangar queen, well, that is fine. Second, the He177 would probably be as much work to add as the StuG III Ausf G, Yak-3, Ki-43 and J2M3 combined.
Why it will likely be modeled as fragile:
adding the HE-177 isnt rational, if it turns out to be a hangar queen because of its fragileness and bad controls, then why even attempt it? if you add the StuG, Yak-3, KI-43 and J2M3 then im sure those would see much more use.
-
adding the HE-177 isnt rational, if it turns out to be a hangar queen because of its fragileness and bad controls, then why even attempt it? if you add the StuG, Yak-3, KI-43 and J2M3 then im sure those would see much more use.
Please name off all the ways the stugIII would see much more use.
As people around the boards keep saying, Having the stugIII in-game would be the same as upping a panzer IV without using its turret.
So what could possibly compel people to up a StugIII that has no turret, and a limited range of fire, when they could up a Panzer IV, and have a full swiveling turret?
I get it tho, YOU personally have a thing for the stugIII, therefore you want it in game. Bar is the same with the M18, im that way with the sherman 105mm.
But you shouldnt go around saying things like "oh well what I want will see so [enter amount] more use than what YOU want"
In actuality the HE-177 would prob see alot more use in AH than the stug. The stug would become a novalty thing. used for a bit when it came out then Hangered for the Panzer IV.
Personally im weary of TD's being introduced into the game. Spawn Camping is bad enough, but TD's seem like they'd be a campers wet dream. Like they are in WOT.
I think TD's shouldnt be released until Artillery is. So then the TD's can be used to protect the Artis while the normal tanks advance on the town. (like in WOT)
-
Please name off all the ways the stugIII would see much more use.
its used as a TD, assault gun, defense gun (v-base attacks) spawn camp breaker (harder to see due to its low sillhouette), NOT bombing a GV fight and many more things. also, never compare WOT to AH, they are so different the only somewhat similarity is the camping. and do you really want to think a TD that was intended for ambushes to really be out in front doing all the dirty work?
-
Well, in my opinion, the only thing that makes it eligible is that it exists. It was a bad program I know, but aren't some of the aircraft on here known for failures? I mean, the Jug is the most flawless icon of an aircraft ever, so is the Warhawk. The more you get into the failures, the more you improve on sit awareness. Also it's a plus for avid players, I bet over 60% of there kills come from project failures. Well, it's not really a failure though, it took off so why argue?
-
its used as a TD, assault gun, defense gun (v-base attacks) spawn camp breaker (harder to see due to its low sillhouette), NOT bombing a GV fight and many more things. also, never compare WOT to AH, they are so different the only somewhat similarity is the camping. and do you really want to think a TD that was intended for ambushes to really be out in front doing all the dirty work?
Nothing you've stated garrentee's people will up the Stug instead of a Panzer.
Assault gun? Panzer is better than the stug in that catagory. Theres no reason to up a stug.
Defence gun? Panzers still better. Plus when it comes to defence, most people just up tigers anyways.
spawn camp breaker? Not likely. Its not that hard to see. Multiple eyes spanning a spawn point, someone will spot it.
many more things? might want to name those many more things because the stuff you did name isent cutting it.
so far you havent named valid reasons how the stug would see more combat than the he177.
Also, Even tho Wot and AH are different, the tactics used in one can be applied to the other.
-
Nothing you've stated garrentee's people will up the Stug instead of a Panzer.
Assault gun? Panzer is better than the stug in that catagory. Theres no reason to up a stug.
Defence gun? Panzers still better. Plus when it comes to defence, most people just up tigers anyways.
spawn camp breaker? Not likely. Its not that hard to see. Multiple eyes spanning a spawn point, someone will spot it.
many more things? might want to name those many more things because the stuff you did name isnt cutting it.
so far you havent named valid reasons how the stug would see more combat than the he177.
as far as the spawn camp breaker, up at least 5 of them and you could stop a decent sized spawn camp. yes, the height of a vehicle matters. the lower the sillhouette the harder it is to see. most people dont see jeeps right away because its so tiny, but they know where it is because of the engine noise.
as the base defence, it would be alot better than a tiger in the ways that you dont have to expose sides of your turret where its weaker and possibly die from it.
the assault gun part you said yourself a while back that it was better suited for attacking towns than a panzer.
as far as the HE-177 will go its just going to be an oversized betty. if they model it like karnak said, weak due to its massive amount of failures then people just wont use it. when was the last time you saw people running G4M's to kill bases? most likely not in the past 3 weeks. its because the plane is so weak people dont want to use it.
-
as far as the HE-177 will go its just going to be an oversized betty. if they model it like karnak said, weak due to its massive amount of failures then people just wont use it. when was the last time you saw people running G4M's to kill bases? most likely not in the past 3 weeks. its because the plane is so weak people dont want to use it.
The bettys shortcoming is not the fact that its "Weak". Its that it doesnt have a sufficient enough Bombload to take on AF's the way other heavies do.
-
The bettys shortcoming is not the fact that its "Weak".
are you kidding?! put the crack pipe down and take a good look at what you just wrote. the betty is one of the top 5 weakest bombers in game. its defenseive guns suck, the engines and other fuel tanks catch on fire easily and it could be downed by a pass or 2 from a FM2. if you want to test this theory try it in the DA with someone, up a formation of betty's and wait how long it is until he kills you. it probably wont be long because the japaneese didnt know what "armor" was...the only really safe way to keep a betty alive is to fly it at 30k+ hardly anyone likes to go up that far just to risk their perk plane/waste time to be downed by bombers. *possibly*
-
if you want to test this theory try it in the DA with someone, up a formation of betty's and wait how long it is until he kills you
When i say the g4m's prob wasent that it was "Weak" i was addressing your comment about people upping g4ms to drop fields, not g4ms vs other planes.
Sure, its defensive fire sucks(except for the 20mm in the tail) And it has little armor, but concerning g4ms upping against fields, thats not the main reason people dont.
The betty doesnt have a very good payload to do much damage to a field. a Town? maybe. but 1 pass with a formation of betty's will get you only 1 droped hanger.
no one wants to up a buff that can only drop one hanger when they could up say, a b25, and drop 3.
Also i have seen a few betty's in MW and EW. Why your commenting tho on ONLINE experiances, i have not the slightest clue.
-
When i say the g4m's prob wasent that it was "Weak" i was addressing your comment about people upping g4ms to drop fields, not g4ms vs other planes.
Sure, its defensive fire sucks(except for the 20mm in the tail) And it has little armor, but concerning g4ms upping against fields, thats not the main reason people dont.
The betty doesnt have a very good payload to do much damage to a field. a Town? maybe. but 1 pass with a formation of betty's will get you only 1 droped hanger.
no one wants to up a buff that can only drop one hanger when they could up say, a b25, and drop 3.
Also i have seen a few betty's in MW and EW. Why your commenting tho on ONLINE experiences, i have not the slightest clue.
the best that 20mm in the tail can do is knock out engines most of the time. sure ive gotten a few kills with it but the payload is good enough to wipe out at least 40% of town in one pass, depending on the bombs you take.
-
The G4M1 was added for scenario use, and it does see good usage there.
In the MA it is a good perk gathering bomber if used to hit towns from 10-15k. It climbs very rapidly for a bomber so you can make quick runs in it.
Don't expect to survive if intercepted though.
-
Holy cow, get a room already! :lol