b-29 but with a catch

[RedTeck]

Well, lets be true to life with it. IF it ever gets in the game, make it a requirement to have someone join you (since the all throttle and flaps were operated by the flight engineer) before you could even start engines, and both parties would have to pay the perk fee!

B-29
20,000lbs
357Max/220Cruise
Ceiling 33,600 Ft

B-17
8,000lbs
287Max/182Cruise
Ceiling 35,600 Ft

B-24
8,000lbs
290Max/215Cruise
Ceiling 28,000 Ft

Lancaster
14,000lbs
272Max/200Cruise
23,500 Ft

Quick info I got from the devil (Wiki) but should be accurate enough to show how much devastation would follow the B-29 (60,000lbs per formation!)

[Larry]

So?  A brief rash of possibly misused B-29s is not a  reason not to add it.

There are reasons not to add it right now, but that isn't one of them.

I don't remember making that post as a 'reason' not to add it. I was quoting wingnutt saying that if they were added that some people would have enough perks to almost fly them indefinitely.

Im sure they skys would be absolutely POLLUTED with them for a short period of time...  but even with many thousands of perkies.. at around a grand per formation even the "rich" would still probably be frugal..

Most people think/want them to be around a Me262 value and that's 200 with a perk multiplier at 1.0. Even at 600-900 per formation their speed and armament will make then very hard to kill, so I don't think alot of people will be losing them unless they are dive bombing a fleet. Seeing that each B29 can carry 20k of bombs you wont need a formation to kill it. I would be like the M4 now, so many people have so many perks that they wont care if they lose one. The only way I think they could limit them is only enabling them from 'zone bases' or resetting everyones bomber perks a month or so before its released.

[Karnak]

I don't remember making that post as a 'reason' not to add it. I was quoting wingnutt saying that if they were added that some people would have enough perks to almost fly them indefinitely.

Only if they flew them correctly.  If they used them as dive bombers, like Lancasters are misused, then even the largest perk bank would run dry reasonably fast.  B-29 would probably be 200-300 perks, so that is 600-900 perks lost for a formation.  Even 20,000 or 30,000 perks would go pretty fast at 900 a pop and I doubt there is a large number of people with that many bomber perks.


HTC could also do a bomber perk reset when introducing it to prevent it from being unbalanced.  Even just a 75-90% reduction in bomber perks.

[Hap]

Under 10K, the bomb bay doors will not open.

[Larry]

Only if they flew them correctly.  If they used them as dive bombers, like Lancasters are misused, then even the largest perk bank would run dry reasonably fast.  B-29 would probably be 200-300 perks, so that is 600-900 perks lost for a formation.  Even 20,000 or 30,000 perks would go pretty fast at 900 a pop and I doubt there is a large number of people with that many bomber perks.


HTC could also do a bomber perk reset when introducing it to prevent it from being unbalanced.  Even just a 75-90% reduction in bomber perks.

But if you're going to go dive bombing knowing theres a good chance your not going to make it back why take a formation? 20k will easily take out all the hangers at a small field or the cruiser and carrier in a fleet. So theres no need to risk more perks when you don't need the extra two bomber to distroy what you're attacking.

[Karnak]

But if you're going to go dive bombing knowing theres a good chance your not going to make it back why take a formation? 20k will easily take out all the hangers at a small field or the cruiser and carrier in a fleet. So theres no need to risk more perks when you don't need the extra two bomber to distroy what you're attacking.

Well, they could always make them super expensive at first and lower the price later.  Say, 1000 for a single plane, 3000 for a formation and later bring it down to the 200-300 range once their use drops off.  HTC has changed perk prices in the past.

There is also the reset on bomber perks as an option.

[Belial]

Has no one thought of the repercussions of nuclear radiation?  Think of all the helpless sheep a nuke would kill, and future generations turning out like SHawk.

[Angus]

Got nothing against the B-29. It was a late war bomber with an impressive performance and payload, but it is not un-interceptable. There actually, the fastest climbing aircraft (like 109 and Spits) would turn out bad because of the fuel burn rate.
There would be perks and no nook, no big deal. We already have perked aircraft as well as aircraft that saw much much less use than the B-29, so I'd rather think it is a goal for HTC, just not the first one in the queue.
Just my 5 cents....

[TheZohan]

Has no one thought of the repercussions of nuclear radiation?  Think of all the helpless sheep a nuke would kill, and future generations turning out like SHawk.

you saying the mullet is the result of radition?