Reasons to add the B-29

[sgtdeaux]

Historically the B-29 relied on altitude and speed to avoid interception.
However this would not work in this game due to the "endless upper factor"  Eventually two or three formations of B-29's even at 30k would get taken down by packs of G-10's or 163's.

The gun turret issue is really a no brainer.  Make the gun veiws available just as in a normal bomber but remove the graphic for the glass, structure and just have a free floating aiming sight.. giving the impression of looking thru a screen or camera.  its actually less graphics work as opposed to more.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by sgtdeaux
Historically the B-29 relied on altitude and speed to avoid interception.

Don't know much about the incendiary campaign, do you?  The high alt stuff was a washout vs. Japan, and LeMay ditched it in favor of mass lower alt firebombing raids designed to set the paper-n-wood cities aflame.

Those lower alt raid survived because: 1) they were mass raids, not 3 bombers against all Japan's air assets; and 2) they were escorted by large numbers of fighters, mostly P-51s. Those historical lessons may have some application in AH2, and you may want to give the issue some thought.

However this would not work in this game due to the "endless upper factor"  .....

Having trouble in your original thread, so trying to metastasize this previously unnoticed "problem"?

Question: This game has been around for, what, 5 years? If this "endless upper"  bee up your butt is such a critical, game destroying issue why are YOU the only person 'ing about it??

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Krusty
Then you run into problems when you're a few yards inside or outside 500yards. Even though you have the perfect shot, the perfectly stationary target, and at 500 yards you would saw the enemy's wing off, say the target is at 600 yards, and the bullets all zip across the target's bow.

The problem is that you only will ever hit at 500, and we all know how likely that is

EDIT: I'm surprised it worked in WW2, considering how it works... I wonder how THEY overcame this problem.

So reviewing the options, it seems there are 2 choices:

1) Use the historical design, and ask the gunner to adjust his lead to account for gun displacement from his view position. (Query: is this what the gunners had to do in 1945? Does any have access to a B29 gunnery manual? What a boon that would be!)

2) Sacrifice accuracy for playability, and give each B29 position a "gunner" with his own "sight".


Either would work, so I dont think the problem is insoluble. The B29 is Uber enough that it seems reasonable to ask us to make the gunnery adjustments needed; but, the simplified bombsight decision implies that (at least in buffs) playability sometimes outranks accurracy in HTC's decisions.

Honestly, since bombers provide an outlet for early players working through the intimidating learning curve -- I have to agree with emphasizing playability. I know that in my early months in AH1, the buff raids let me play when everything else might have felt terminally discouraging.

Whether the same principle should apply in perk buffs is a worthy question, though.

[Blammo]

sgtdeaux:
Why not just suggest to HTC that bombers be invincible (or nigh invincible, at least).  Based on this thread  that you previously posted, that's what you're after.  You want to take a single set of bombers, fly through the stratosphere to target, bomb the crap out of it and make it home without a scratch.

Or why not make a deal with everyone in the game just to not shoot down bombers anymore?

Seriously, what is the problem?  You are going on and on about how vunerable the bombers are and you think adding a different type of bomber will make a difference?  Just to clue you in:  if the B-29 ever does enter the game, and you take it out all alone and/or unescorted in small groups, you will still get shot down by the "endless uppers".  For that matter, you'll get shot down by just one guy that knows what he is doing.  If you can't handle losing your bombers to fighters now, how are you going to deal with it when your supposed super bomber get's shot down (repeatedly).

In WW2, in the bombing raids by B-29s, there were still losses of these bombers.  The reason they were so few was not so much because the B-29 was so superior, but because by that time in the air war, Japan was rapidly running out of quality pilots.  These bombers still flew in groups and still had escorts.  The only time this stopped being the case was once air superiority was complete (by fighters, not bombers) and only in the case of the weather/photo/recon bombers and the modified A-Bomb droppers.

This is not intended as a flame, but to continue to try and help you see that it is your tactics that are the problem, not the ride you are taking.  If what you are doing is not working, stop doing it and try something else.  Either that or just keep telling yourself everyone else is wrong and you are right.

[Krusty]

As a side note, the B29 high alt campaign was killed by the winds over Japan... For some freak reason they get up to 250mph at 20k (really screws with bomb aiming). I think I heard this wasn't normal everywhere, just that right over Japan there's a jetstream or something.

[RAIDER14]

they might have to start thinkin about adding a B-29 with nuke ord when T.O.D. japan comes around but we still got a while till then:aok

[sgtdeaux]

I'm amazed at the people in this game who think they are teaching me anything new at all.
All of the tactics you profess that I learn to do ive been doing for quite some time.
you find it amusing to flame everytime I mention the "endless upper factor" because I think it offends you somehow.
Perhaps if you spend more time reflecting on the ideas and how they would affect the overall tactical situation of the game as opposed to vomiting more literary abortions onto the board in response to my posts you might see that there are decent reasons for my sudgestions.
I have no interest in seeing the bombers being immortal.. I record missions and enjoy watching the challenges I face in limping a damaged bomber home. I am more interested in making the game more historically accurate as opposed to the direction its heading..
A massive furball, noob machine storm.

[Simaril]

OK, if you want us to take the limit idea seriously --

how does making a fighter wait your suggested "30 seconds" have ANY impact on your problem of limping home? It just means he hits you 30 seconds later! What's the point?

AND if you require fighters to wait longer, explain how that doesnt amount to "making everyone else in the arena wait so you're mroe likely to finish your sortie"? The vast majority of the 100+ pilots flying for the country you're dropping on couldnt care less about you. You're worried about the "5-8" who keep attacking. Should the entire arena suffer because you dont like getting "endless uppers"?

Lastly, you say you've tried all the tactics we've talked about -- then why are you whining? If you fly with even one escort, you'll find that the endless uppers arent a problem at all. If you'fe willing to do that, why EVER would you require a change in game mechanics that would penalize everyone who doesnt fly buffs the way YOU do?








Deaux, you have not been flamed at all. (If you think the disagreements here are "flames",  you would have run home weeping six months ago -- before the "kindler, gentler" BBS policies). You've contradicted yourself (You do solo deep penetration but "I've been using these ideas for some time??" You want to make the game more historically accurate by preventing people from taking off to attack you?) You've been taken more seriously than this idea deserves, honestly -- and its clear that you havent thought about how your proposals would affect the rest of the non-SgtDeaux arena.

originally posted by SgtDeaux
I'm amazed at the people in this game who think they are teaching me anything new at all

It also seems that either from a lack of comprehension, or from the kind of overweening pride that comes from being sure that only you can be right, the community's attempts to help you see why this is a bad idea arent getting through. If you havent gotten it by now, you probably cant get it, or you refuse to get it.

So, I'm out of this.

[Krusty]

I hereby declare this topic dead. All has been said that needs to be said. We've been more than friendly, civil, and helpful, but have had none in return. I'm out as well.

[Karnak]

Originally posted by sgtdeaux
Historically the B-29 relied on altitude and speed to avoid interception.
However this would not work in this game due to the "endless upper factor"  Eventually two or three formations of B-29's even at 30k would get taken down by packs of G-10's or 163's.

The gun turret issue is really a no brainer.  Make the gun veiws available just as in a normal bomber but remove the graphic for the glass, structure and just have a free floating aiming sight.. giving the impression of looking thru a screen or camera.  its actually less graphics work as opposed to more.

Do you have any idea how hard it is for a fighter to intercept a bomber like that?

The B-29 at start is going 360mph (Lets not joke here, you'll be firewalled) at 30,000ft and the Bf109K-4 is starting at 0mph at, say, 2,500ft.  It takes the Bf109K-4, say, 10 minutes and all of his WEP to climb to 35,000ft.  In that time the Bf109K-4's forward speed is about 160mph, the rest of his airspeed being in the verticle.  So, let's say that for 10 minutes the B-29 has a 200mph speed advantage on the Bf109K-4 which means that in the time it took the Bf109K-4 to climb to 35,000ft the B-29 put another 34 miles between it and the Bf109K-4.  Now the Bf109K-4 levels out and starts to accelerate slowly as it is well above it's critical altitude and out of WEP.  By the Time the Bf109K-4 reaches 360mph the B-29 is more than 37 miles ahead of the Bf109K-4.  By the time the Bf109K-4 has maxed it's speed, say, 400mph, the B-29 is a mere 36 miles ahead.  With a 40mph closing rate it will take the Bf109K-4 50 minutes catch the B-29 and there is no way that the Bf109K-4 will have enough fuel to do so at the rate it has been burning it.

Endless upper problem my ass.

[Krusty]

Just ignore him. He didn't even read the rest of this thread, just wanted to add something about "endless uppers", or else he'd have understood what the issue was with the gun positions.

[Shane]

and weren't the b-29's stripped of most of their guns for that fire-bombing campaign? just a pair or 2 left facing rearward....

hmmm?

[Krusty]

Not that I know of... The guns were in remote turrets, I don't know if they were easily removable or not.

[Rino]

I think they cut the defensive armament down when they switched to
the lower altitude night firebombing raids.  Reason being is that the
japanese didn't have a very developed night fighting capability and they
could carry more ordnance.

[Blammo]

Originally posted by Shane
and weren't the b-29's stripped of most of their guns for that fire-bombing campaign? just a pair or 2 left facing rearward....

hmmm?

From my understanding only the recon/weather versions and the a-bomb version were stripped of defense guns.