Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: muckmaw on March 28, 2002, 03:07:37 PM
-
I know what side of this debate Karnak is on. I know my opinion. And I know Shane's. What do you guys think?
Would the 29 unbalance the game?
If not, should it be perked and at what level?
Should it only be allowed to fly from certain fields?
Opinions?
-
Nothing could unbalance the game if you perked it HIGH enough to make it rare - it's a little uber to be sure.
Ducks the question 'cause he wants a Liberator 1st.
-W
-
Chit yes the thing should be in the game.
Just perk the hell outta it.
-
Would be neat to have, fun to fly, but definitely perk it.
Say bout 25-30 points, low eny and obj value
-
(http://www.boeing.com/companyoffices/history/boeing/images/b-29.jpg)
The damn thing was designed in 1940 as an eventual replacement for the B- 17 and B-24. The first one built made its maiden flight on September 21, 1942. In December 1943 it was decided not to use the B-29 in the European Theater, thereby permitting the airplane to be sent to the Pacific area where its great range made it particularly suited for the long over-water flight required to attack the Japanese homeland from bases in China (spring of 1944). During the last two months of 1944, B-29s began operating against Japan from the islands of Saipan, Guam and Tinian.
So. Just how effing threatening could a 1942 plane, designed in 1940, early war plane be? It's not like it came out in mid/late 1944 or 1945.
Rob
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-03.html
-
You just can't put another Allied heavy in without throwing in an Axis or Russian heavy first. Eventually, sure, but let's give the other side something to play with first.
Unbalancing? No, so long as it can't fly 40K and perform like a Pitts Special at that alt, and it has a high perk value.
-
I'll repeat what someone else said.
"If you want an untouchable bomber then go bomb offline."
-
Originally posted by Ratbo
Ducks the question 'cause he wants a Liberator 1st.
-W
Shocking!:D
Drano
-
I think it should be put in UNPERKED. It is not untouchable. Ta-152 Temp and someother things can catch it. But who in gods name would waste an hour and a half geting her up to 30,000 feet. And if they do model it it should have incideary bombs to burn the hart out of Tokyo in scanareos:D Pure burning fun:D
-
Fire bombs??
what?
screw that noise... I want FAT BOY!
muahahahha!
-
"...I want FAT BOY!"
Huzzah!
Spoken like a true FDB!
-
Wasn't it FAT MAN $ LITTLE BOY"?
-
my error Incideary Bombs:D AND WATCH THE RICE BURNING PLANES TRY TO GET ME MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA:D :p
-
Your kidding yourself if you think a B29 won't be perked. And I would expect anywhere between 80-200 points given the current perk levels.
Huge Payload, excellent defensive guns, and very good high altitude performance.
Its self explanatory.
-
And by the time we get it, the AI bombers should be worked out, so 1 B-29 will really be 4 of them in formation. .
Can you imagine a B-29 bombing raid being challenged by a schwarm of 262s? Oh, the perks! Oh the humanity!
I wonder though what Japanese plane could dare try to intercept it when the CT goes PTO the first time after it's release.
-
In response to Kieran, I would say, it's only fair to throw in a heavy that's not American.
How do you feel about the TU-4? :D :D :D :D
-
...So. Just how effing threatening could a 1942 plane, designed in 1940, early war plane be? It's not like it came out in mid/late 1944 or 1945.
...ask all the people who shot at the SR-71 fourty years after it was designed and missed...
I typically fly my B17 at 35k. The only thing a B29 is going to add is bomb load. As for "who will take the time to get it that high", me. Typically I set the auto pilot and go back into the crew's lounge and watch a DVD, cook, wave a rubber chicken and do work voodoo on another machine, or whatever. Not that I'd complain about the increaded bomb load.
My father was a nose gunner in the B-24 over on the Pacific side. I have his old gunnery book, even. I'd also like to see that added first.
-
But we DO need the B-25H!
-
You're kidding yourself if you think the B-29 is not a quantum leap over the B-17. You left out that little bit about top speed, right? B-17G comes in around 290mph, B-29 is what, 360mph? And as has been pointed out, given there will be four per flight, that is 80,000 lbs of ord raining down on you with one pilot from a formation that is too high and too fast to catch unless you are in the right place at the right time in the right plane. This is indeed a serious threat by any standard.
B-29 remained as the backbone of the bomber fleet until the advent of the B-36 and jet bombers. The B-17 was relegated to sub patrol and target drone. Why is that? ;)
P.S. The range of the B-29 is considerably longer than that of the B-17 as well, meaning liftoff with a quarter tank will allow you to climb and circumvent the AH globe at high alt. There's more here than meets the eye...
-
who the hell spends time taking a buff to 30k ???
has to be boring as hell.
bring the Me163.. that will balance it out :)
forget those long climbs to intercept.
-
Simply........ no
-
Taking the B17 up to 35k takes about 30 minutes, during which I do other things. I'm always above 30k when I enter indian country. Typically after I drop I'll come down to 20-25k and give the fighters a chance to improve my score for the hop. I've only been seriously damaged twice; once when I quit paying attention and a 109 lagged out of nowhere, and once when that spit did the Memphis Belle trick on me.
To date nobody has ever been up at my alt when I'm dropping bombs.
Since I'm only on that screen for takeofff, landing, bomb run, and cource corrections it's not that boring. The rest of the time I'm elsewhere in the apartment or on another computer (I use an 8 port KVM at home :) )
B29 would be nice, but I'd still rather have a B24M for general bombing about. That's the model my father spent the most time in :D
-
Drop down to 20K and I'll eat your lunch 9 times outta 10. ;)
-
Seconded!!!
-W (the biased)
B29 would be nice, but I'd still rather have a B24M for general bombing about. That's the model my father spent the most time in :D [/B][/QUOTE]
-
Im not sure why people are opposed to the B-29. IMHO I think any addition to the game makes it that much better. Look at the controversy surrounding the Me-262 - many people hought we'd be closer to a Korean arena with its release but does it have a huge impact on gameplay? No. I say bring the B-29 and perk it somewhere around 60-70. Keep in mind that despite the fact that it carries a massive payload, thats alot of bomber perks to put on the line and the AC would make a big contribution to strat.
By the same token, I agree that we should introduce some Axis and Soviet heavy buffs as well. An He-111 would be nice, Do-17, Fw-200 - and those Russian giants... Tu-2, right? And as long as were doing all that - B-25H, Betty, B24 and please oh please some friggin divebombers: Stuka, Val, Kate, Avenger, Helldiver, etc etc.
-
Sure, B-29...no problem. BUT the perk points need to be at least 800!!
Hawkeye
The Original Flying Tigers
-
I think they should bring it in. Perk it around 100-200 pts. That will give the bomber crews something to really salivate over, and also give a boost to the amount of bombers in the arena just so they can acquire the necessary perks for it. Not to mention, it will provide a nice heavy extremely powerful but rare buff for us P47's to take out, thereby giving us more perks for the much wanted P47M/N. (Which hopefully will be about the same time as the B29) :D
-
Absolutely, definitely, yes I want it. Who'd spend time taking it up to 30K? Me. I do it a lot of the time now anyway.
BUT.
A couple of things have to happen first.
First, the B29 has to get in line behind some other more pressing needs: Luftie, Russian and Japanese buffs, and a Liberator.
Second, as we discussed in the other thread, start modelling wind drift and bomb dispersal, and that will reduce the potency of that 20K (or 80K, if that ever happens) of ordinance "raining down."
Second, let's get a little more moderate on the perk costs. 800? Give me a break. It's not like it's a B52. You can set a relatively low perk value so that peeople would actually fly it. (I personally thing perk values should be relative not simply to the power of the plane, but the overall use of the planes. So, at the moment, 200 for the 262 is reasonable, because this is mostly a fighter sim at the moment, and the 262 can really unbalance the fighter element. But since so few people fly buffs, especially on a regular basis, buff perks should generally be lower.) But, you could also drop the OBJ value. And, as we also discused in the other thread, each side should only have one airfield from which you can launch the 29.
The only other thing I'd suggest is that when it is introduced, further down the line, it should maybe be introduced in a package with a couple of high alt interceptors.
-
something else to consider about the ord loadouts on the b-29 (or any buff for that matter - following the rationale behind this snippet - altho i doubt we'd ever see a fuel burn/alt ceiling based on weight of particular loadouts modeled)
http://www.csd.uwo.ca/~pettypi/elevon/baugher_us/b029-04.html
this for the b-29b
Armament:
Maximum internal short-range, *low-altitude* bomb load was 20,000 pounds. A load of 5000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at *high altitude*. A load of 12,000 pounds of bombs could be carried over a 1600-mile radius at *medium altitude. *
follow the link for the *altitude* definitions.
-
What the hell is it going to do any differently than a 35k B17 in the game now. The load won't be any better than the lanc, except it will get higher and likey out turn fighters up there other than the 262.
-
You guys want a russian Heavy so bad?
Bring on the TU-4 before the 29! :D
*No one is getting this joke, are they?*
C'mon you guys. I thought you knew everything about WWII hardware.
Your really letting me down here.
Nobody watching the Discovery Wings Channel lately?
And where then hell is Karnak when I need him?
-
real run on people with a false sense of supperiority arround this bbs of late.
Soviet copy of the B29. reputed to be complete with bullet holes.
-
Dude, you put a 360mph, 20k payload, 35K+ ceiling, 10x.50 and 1x20mm defensive armament, 3,200 mile-range bomber in this arena for free, you may as well remove the other bombers. What's gonna catch it at alt? A 262 at 200 points? A Ta152 at 70 points? Shoot, the Japanese don't have anything to catch it at all at that height. That leaves P-38, 109, P-51, and a couple of other aircraft that have the lungs to go that high, and one teeny mistake and they are toast or miss the chance altogether.
Ever chase a B-17 or Lanc at high alt? It's hard enough. Now imagine something 70-80 mph faster.
IF and WHEN it appears, it has to be perked, and big. It WILL get through, and it WILL wreak havoc.
-
I got the Tu-4 reference, I was just ignoring you :)
Anyone who wants to "eat my lunch" is welcome. I learn exactly SQUAT nailing people who give me zero deflection shots from the tail turret. I need people who know how to kill buffs to teach me how to gun from them. I'm not a very good buff gunner; no experience at it.
-
Originally posted by muckmaw
You guys want a russian Heavy so bad?
Bring on the TU-4 before the 29! :D
I'd have to second this request.
The Tu-4 is a example of classical Soviet originality.
The B-29? *yawn* Just another Yankee bomber.
-
Shane, the only problem with that logic is this: the stated ceiling for the Lancaster is 24,671 ft. How many times have you seen 35K Lancs with full loads over your HQ in AH? Lots.
So, is it unreasonable to assume the B-29 won't operate above its performance specs in AH? Think it is impossible we may see 40K buffs? How many fighters in the game can operate, not to mention operate offensively, at that altitude?
-
I'd like to see it, perk at 10 points (yes 10), because with full bomb load it's rate of climb will be worse then the lanc.
But I would rather see a german heavy bomber added first.
-
Ahh, My faith in the BBS is restored.
Hey, I'm not acting superior. I picked up that little tidbit of info the other night, and was aching to use it.
God knows, I don't know half the Sh*t you fellas are talking about most of the time.
Thanks Pongo! I can sleep now.:)
-
Whenever I think of the B29.. all I remember is one day when I was watching a documentary and they had a piece on the B29 and my grandfather walked in and looked at the screen and said
"B29 eh?... the damned thing was tail heavy... I wanted to fly P38's but the damned Airforce stuck me in bombers...."
then turned around and left...
I was rollin' hehe ;)
-
B29 has a maximum conventional payload of 16,000 pounds. Thats only 2000 pounds more than the Lancaster. The early versions that had guns had 4 remote turrets with 2 .50 cals in each turret. The tail gunner had a 20mm cannon. The B29b had no defensive armament. Crews werent real happy about that.
I am 100% for having the B29. It might need to be perked since it is such a good bomber. 20 to 30 perks would be acceptable. Less is better.
Historical statistic: More B29s were lost due to mechanical failures than due to combat damage.
-
WoOot! Looks like lots o'fish for a Lenten Friday tommorow! :) Only a foo' would ever think the B-29 should not be perked.
I am a tad dissapointed that the topic did not get very inflammatory. where were the calls for the P.101 or TA-183?? ;) I guess the obnoxious leprechaun looking for film.exe stole the wind out of all else going on today ;)
-
I would love to see the B-29 in AH, the sooner the better. Would it be unbalancing? Hell yes!! But only if it were unperked, which would be a major mistake. I feel a fair perk value would be in the 40-90 range. Only being enabled at certain airfields also sounds like a decent idea, maybe limit it to medium and large or possibly just large fields. Fighters already have the ultimate example of their kind in the game (262), why can't the bombers have theirs?
-
B-29A would be the version to add, hopefully with the 4 gun forward top turret too.
Kieran,
B-29A with the 4 gun turret had 12 50s and 1 20mm.:D
As to perking it, hell yes. The thing would render all other bombers moot and pointless if it weren't perked. The level of perking is something I'd leave up to HTC. There are many factors to consider with this particular aircraft. It is very powerful, but it isn't actually fast enough to run from fighters and like all perk planes it will get gangbanged. It might prove too unsurvivable to justify a 200 point price tag. I'd hesitantly suggest a 100 point price tag, given the current perk values in AH (which I have made abundently clear that I think are too high).
BTW, Kieran, the Lanc's technical ceiling was 24,000ft. Technical because the way the RAF defined an aircraft's service ceiling was by the point at which its climb rate dropped to less than 500ft per minute.
The Lanc could climb higher, the RAF simply didn't see the point at that rate of climb. People playing AH are simply ignoring that and slowly clawing their way higher.
Now, if the Lanc climbs faster than 500ft per minute at 24,000ft, you have an issue.
Pongo,
It wasn't "complete with bullet holes". It was "complete with holes accidentily drilled during construction".
-
How about B-29B as non perk? :)
-
Will we have it AH? - Im sure one day we will!
Will it be perked? - Yes it will be!
How much will it cost? - A lot! My guess is 100-200 pps
-
my 262 is getting HOT bring `em :D
-
Can you imagine the hoots and hollars from the 262 pilots when they first fall to such a thing? ;)
Pongo-
Gonna test that Lanc climb. I'm pretty sure I already know the answer, but I wanna be sure...
-
I want FAT BOY!
Wasn't it FAT MAN $ LITTLE BOY"?
If you are refering to the atomic bombs dropped in WWII, yes, it was fat man and little boy. However, I believe Hang is talking about HTC adding a special SOB loadout to the B-29. Could you imagine the devastation that would be wrought when you dropped SOB from 30,000 feet?
-
... mass extinction!
-
Relax, its just a game.
-
please?:confused: