Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Shark88 on July 08, 2003, 09:36:22 AM
-
We need a B29 with a nuke
-
If we get one, it'll cost 5000 perk points and would have to take out 5 or 6 fields.
A normal B29 would be nice.
-
I'd settle for just the B-29, sans nuke.
-
yeah teh b-29 with a nuke andc ommanDo Combat aircrewmen with r4diation suiTs And bazookas that bail out and cliam the radiated land fro tjheir fellow coumtrynen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! jhack the plannat!!!!!!!!!!11~~~~~~~
-
no, we not need b29
-
And like a scorpian that hovers without flapping
whoops, wrong forum.
-
anyone keeping count on how many frikin people have asked for a stupid nuke? i swear ive seen it like 20 times.
-
I say give Skuzzy the nuke development project. And when ya drop it YOUR com line and motherboard fries on detonation. :p
-
Originally posted by jjdude
anyone keeping count on how many frikin people have asked for a stupid nuke? i swear ive seen it like 20 times.
No, its just shark on his own.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
No, its just shark on his own.
Join me!!!!!!! I need supporters!!!! its what ended the war!!! We should be able to bail out and shoot the rifles!!
-
Its not what ended the war, no one thing ended the damn war.
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Its not what ended the war, no one thing ended the damn war.
Beg to differ. The Japanese claimed that they would fight to the last person. When they realized it could come to that with no loss to the enemy they surrendered.
-
**Getting off topic alert, take it to the History forum ;) **
Shark88..
(http://locke.artamir.org/STFU.jpg)
-
yeah , they would make great dive bombers, then level off at the deck at say 600mph, instead of 520 like the b17.
-
Wasn't it peace that ended the war?;) .
-
no thx to the b29... need plenty more planes before that one.... maybe in version 10.87....... for dos
-
Originally posted by bfreek
yeah , they would make great dive bombers, then level off at the deck at say 600mph, instead of 520 like the b17.
Yes, we need a B-29: as the very last plane ever modeled for the game and only after a great many other worthwhile, as supposed to noodle wagging silliness, planes are modeled. I can think of a dozen Japanese planes I would want before the 29.
I'd want infantry weapons and bear, wolves and deer to use them on modeled before a B-29.
Sakai
-
Beg to differ. The Japanese claimed that they would fight to the last person. When they realized it could come to that with no loss to the enemy they surrendered.
The Japanese were taking steps to "an honorable ceasefire" already in the beginning of 1945.
Like all countries, Japan had their share of 'Hawks' and 'Doves' - and the ultra hardline rightwing sections of the Army was what really drove Japan to an all out war.
The history of the conflict between the sections of the more reasonable civilian politicians/Japanese Naval officers, and the hard-line expansionist Army officials goes way back. Those Army elites with Prime Minister Tojo at the absolute top, lost power near the last days of the war.
For example, Pearl Harbor was originally intended as a more 'defensive concept' of tactical attack than a real 'attack&expand' type of mission - give the first blow, gain quick victories, fight about a year, and then initiate peace talks as soon as possible. The Naval officers were a new type of elites, educated and well informed of the potential might of the US. On the contrary, the Army has its origins sprouting from the Meiji reforms - old elites and aristocratic nobles who took pride in the fact that they were the new masters of modern Japan. By the last days of the war, they were completely removed from the seats of power - civilian politicians and new military officials were talking about the acceptable conditions of surrender, when Nagasaki and Hiroshima went up in smoke.
The "fight to the last man" was a propaganda any country would initiate in a losing battle, nothing more. If America was on the verge of collapes, I don't think your generals would tell the soldiers "take it easy, we're gonna lose soon". ;)
-
Originally posted by Kweassa
If America was on the verge of collapes, I don't think your generals would tell the soldiers "take it easy, we're gonna lose soon". ;)
No, they'd say "OMG!! WE'RE GONNA LOOSE!! F4 F4 F4!!!"
Et oh, 2 natural selection related posts, hope this doesn't become a habbit....
-
Originally posted by Shark88
We need a B29 with a nuke
btw, pls not use "WE", write "I"
I not need B29, and never will need
-
i do not wanna b29 at all!!! ..... and
........if u wanna a b29 with nuke are u sure to have choosen the rigth
multyplayer game? :D :D
-
why not the b29 we got the 262 and 163
-
Originally posted by yb11
why not the b29 we got the 262 and 163
A fair question indeed.
The B-29 actually makes more sense to me than either of those. If we limited it to rear bases, maybe after every thing else is modeled. I mean everything.
But if you could have a new bomber or fighter (or two, or say 8 new models of planes already built) that was free and available everywhere or a B-29 which would you take? Would you trade the B-29 for the P-39 (note that there are several useful P-39 variants that could be easily configured once the model was complete). The Myriad B-25 models? The He-111s? How about simply taking the resources and fleshing out more fully the 109s and Spits? Can nwe really justify the B-29 without a few more Spits and 109s and 190s? I doubt it.
I'd rather have merchant shipping to contend with. The B-29 is too much plane, like the 262 and 163. One flight would be a complete Base Killer.
I would trade these three to have had these resources put into developing other aircraft, I think "Billy the rocket boy vs the B-29 moonmen" is not what is appealing about WWII aerial combat.
If AH2 requires new modeling, I say dump the techno wonders and build the AC that fought 99.999999% of the aerial combat.
But that is simply one opinion. I love the 29, it was used a ton in the Pacific, but not until the issue was decided. I would much rather have a fighter or bomber from the fearful and heady days of 1939 to 1943.
"Sakai, you'd swap an I-16 Rata for the magnificent B-29?" In a heartbeat, especially when one realizes the Rata had a few configurations (some with MGs, some with cannon) and fought across a number of years (including the SCW) and is wonderful for both the Ma and the Scenario/CT crowd.
So, would you want a B-29 if it cost you a different, more useful plane to the MA that was not only cool as hell but also would not unbalance gameplay? Wold you rather have 4 new GVs or a B-29? Or perhaps a submarine or artillery and a new fighter?
Those are the questions, in my opinion, that should be asked.
Sakai
-
Yep we need more bombers, last update we got all fighters. Ok so the kate and the stuka you call a bomber but not a real one :-0
ok so its a real one and I woulndt want a kate or stuka to dive bomb my house but more bombers would be cool with formations. B25 for cvs B24 or B29 for larger formation bombers would be great though.
-
Originally posted by mia389
Yep we need more bombers, last update we got all fighters. Ok so the kate and the stuka you call a bomber but not a real one :-0
ok so its a real one and I woulndt want a kate or stuka to dive bomb my house but more bombers would be cool with formations. B25 for cvs B24 or B29 for larger formation bombers would be great though.
I'd agree, more bombers, but make:
He-111s
Sm79s
B-25s
B-24s
Wellingtons
Il-4s
None of those will throw the MA off, the B-29 is uber de duber.
The Stuka is a great plane, I wouldn't trade it for anything.
Sakai
-
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?
YES!
Sakai
LOL
-
He-111s
Sm79s
B-25s
B-24s
Wellingtons
Il-4s
and a host of others, (Betty, Emily...) before a B-29. Of course I look at this from an events perspective, but I care little for the B-29. :rolleyes:
------------------------
CO daddog
332nd Flying Mongrels (http://www.332nd.org/)
Roster (http://www.332nd.org/squadroster.htm)
Events! (http://www.hitechcreations.com/events.html)
Noses in the wind since 1997.
(http://www.ropescourse.org/cdaddog.jpg)
To be ignorant of one’s own ignorance is the malady of the ignorant. – Alcott
-
Okey, just a pet peeve...
"Nuke" and "Nuclear" in reference to weapons are references to the "thermonuclear" or "H" bomb. These weapons are fusion weapons.
The two weapons used at the end of World War 2 were "Atomic" weapons, or fission bombs, not nukes.
While, in the vernacular, the terms are sometimes used interchangeably; if you have ever seen both an atomic and a nuclear blast, you would realize the difference is quite spectacular.
I don't mean to be an ultra melon about it, but nuclear weapons have never been used in warfare, and as much as folks talk about historical accuracy here, I thought I might as well throw in my peeve.
-
double posted.. sorry
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?
I'd trade the current Stuka for the Ju-87D-5 with the wing mounted 20mm cannons or the G-1 with the 37mm Flak 18 cannons.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?
I'd trade the current Stuka for the Ju-87D-5 with the wing mounted 20mm cannons or the G-1 with the 37mm Flak 18 cannons.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?
I'd trade the current Stuka for the Ju-87D-5 with the wing mounted 20mm cannons or the G-1 with the 37mm Flak 18 cannons.
Ack-Ack
-
Originally posted by BenDover
Would you trade the stuka for one with a dive siren?
I'd trade the current Stuka for the Ju-87D-5 with the wing mounted 20mm cannons or the G-1 with the 37mm Flak 18 cannons.
Ack-Ack
-
its what ended the war!!! We should be able to bail out and shoot the rifles
A) It helped end the war, but it did not entirely. The nuke helped a lot, but so did the russians invading china.
B) Once again, you have a rifle because HTC was too lazy to make a seperate pilot model from the paratrooper. However, a colt45 would be nice.
In my opinion.......yes to the b29 no to the nuke. However I think should concentrate on other things first like axis bombers before making a b29.
-
Shhhh .... Shark88 is trollin' cause he bored. ;)
-
guess you really wanted to make your point ack ack?
-
these are the bombers we need
B29:5they did use it as an example for a perks plane right so they might as well put it in
Halifax:night bomber something we need more of and british bomb we also need more of them i mean the boston and lanc are good but we just need more
He111: we need this it and the ju88 were just about the only really german bombers that were relivant.
B24:we need this it was faster than the 17 had more bomb load but couldn't be handled above 20k a really challenge fro me:D
B25:the B26 is fine but isn't controlable and this is more controlable
MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR AH2 BELOW
NEW FREAKIN BOMBSIGHT
we need a new bomb sight for differnet planes like i know that lancs and ju88's didn't have norton bombsight so why are we using them in lancs and ju88's?:confused: it makes no sense to me so i say get a new bomb sight and use they type that the bombers really had.
skull12
-
these are the bombers we need
B29:5they did use it as an example for a perks plane right so they might as well put it in
Halifax:night bomber something we need more of and british bomb we also need more of them i mean the boston and lanc are good but we just need more
He111: we need this it and the ju88 were just about the only really german bombers that were relivant.
B24:we need this it was faster than the 17 had more bomb load but couldn't be handled above 20k a really challenge fro me:D
B25:the B26 is fine but isn't controlable and this is more controlable
MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR AH2 BELOW
NEW FREAKIN BOMBSIGHT
we need a new bomb sight for differnet planes like i know that lancs and ju88's didn't have norton bombsight so why are we using them in lancs and ju88's?:confused: it makes no sense to me so i say get a new bomb sight and use they type that the bombers really had.
skull12
-
these are the bombers we need
B29:5they did use it as an example for a perks plane right so they might as well put it in
Halifax:night bomber something we need more of and british bomb we also need more of them i mean the boston and lanc are good but we just need more
He111: we need this it and the ju88 were just about the only really german bombers that were relivant.
B24:we need this it was faster than the 17 had more bomb load but couldn't be handled above 20k a really challenge fro me:D
B25:the B26 is fine but isn't controlable and this is more controlable
MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR AH2 BELOW
NEW FREAKIN BOMBSIGHT
we need a new bomb sight for differnet planes like i know that lancs and ju88's didn't have norton bombsight so why are we using them in lancs and ju88's?:confused: it makes no sense to me so i say get a new bomb sight and use they type that the bombers really had.
skull12
-
these are the bombers we need
B29:they did use it as an example for a perks plane right so they might as well put it in
Halifax:night bomber something we need more of and british bomb we also need more of them i mean the boston and lanc are good but we just need more
He111: we need this it and the ju88 were just about the only really german bombers that were relivant.
B24:we need this it was faster than the 17 had more bomb load but couldn't be handled above 20k a really challenge fro me:D
B25:the B26 is fine but isn't controlable and this is more controlable
MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR AH2 BELOW
NEW FREAKIN BOMBSIGHT
we need a new bomb sight for differnet planes like i know that lancs and ju88's didn't have norton bombsight so why are we using them in lancs and ju88's?:confused: it makes no sense to me so i say get a new bomb sight and use they type that the bombers really had.
skull12
-
Is it a new fad or something to post 4 posts at the same time?
-
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
-
What are you talking about?
-
What are you talking about?
-
What are you talking about?
-
dont know my computer went whack it said done but wouldn't change pages:confused: :confused: :confused: :confused:
-
Who really needs another "buff" that drops thousands of farts and craps splashing over the targets?. All we need is the G4M with the Ohka manned flying bomb. The Ohka has 2600lb of explosives and its enough to take out every target in the game.
-
We do need a perk bomber other than the Arado. The B29 is a good option, but I'd like to see more interesting planes.
-
Some of the specs I am reading claim 20,000 lb bombload on the B-29 (conventional). That would certainly be neato to spend my accumulated perks on besides the silly Arado.
Definitely need perk bombers... definitely... definitely...
-
Would loveee a perk B-29...
You guys ever been in one?? i got a personal tour in "Fi-Fi"
EXCELLENT..
i would defntly vote for b-29!!!!!
even a nuke..but at a HUGE COSTS!!!!! 500 perks? would flatn any field 1 drop:) hehe ooooo hh the whines :)
love
BiGB
-
Originally posted by BGBMAW
even a nuke..but at a HUGE COSTS!!!!! 500 perks? would flatn any field 1 drop:) hehe ooooo hh the whines :)
That would be one hell of a furball porker.
-
Wow! 51 replies!!! thats the most i have ever gotten when i asked for a "atomic" bomb and a b29!! thx:D :D :D :D :D :D
-
cough
-
-
i thinks its a good idea!