So how is our P-39 coming?

[MajIssue]

Originally posted by Relorian
The swordfish was far beyond a "Piece of crap" but it got the job done. The British using those outdated planes helped to knock out the Bismark.

The P-39 and P-40 may have used the same engine but they were unique aircraft and being that it was a hugely used plane, it should be honestly included. Its faster than the Yak, carried more guns than the yak (4x.50 cal, 1x 37 or 20mm cannon) and had enough models including a naval version. I also think it would make a better addition than the B-29. We do NOT need another american bomber at all plus it would carry more ord than the Lancaster, rendering it useless. Lancasters max bombload in game is 14 1k bombs. The B-29's max load was 20k bombs. Infact it would render most other bombers useless other t

Its been voted on by the users and while it lost out to the B-25, it still did fairly well.

As for flying the P-40... I fly one frequently. I see them frequently as well on the MA's. They fare well in combat if you know how to fly em. Most of the time its the P-40E but ive also seen the other version more these days.

Id write more but Im about to pass out on my keyboard.

P-40 is candy in my gunsite. The B-29 SHOULD be added not because it "Won the War" but because there is no other viable perk bomber in the game. The AR234 has such a uselessly small bomb load that upping it is an exercise in futility.

So you're FOR adding an American FIGHTER (P-39)
and AGAINST adding an American BOMBER (B-29)

What kind of pretzel logic is THAT???

The Superfort would be perked heavily (IMHO) so the lanc would still have it's place... Personally I don't like much about the lancaster except it's bombload. No belly guns, small caliber guns and little ammo for the ones that ARE there, coupled with the climb rate of a Winnabago makes it a total drag to fly. Additionally the Superforts would give the Rook Alt monkeys someting to do up there besides flying figure eights over a furball.

[zorstorer]

Originally posted by Rich46yo
...How often do you fly the P-40 (Hurri Mk1 late war only)? Or an aircraft with similar performance? How often do you even see them in the air?...

It's a blast that most folks haven't even tried!!  

There is a small but dedicated group of folks who fly "outclassed" planes in the MA. We enjoy it, so any addition of outclassed planes would be great.

[Redlegs]

*cough* He-111 *cough*

[Bronk]

Originally posted by MajIssue


So you're FOR adding an American FIGHTER (P-39)
and AGAINST adding an American BOMBER (B-29)

What kind of pretzel logic is THAT???

Well, how many theaters did the 29 fly in and for how long?
Now, how about the P-39?



There is your "pretzel logic.

[Yossarian]

WTF is so difficult about having a thread which doesn't degenerate into a partial slanging match?
I've been looking at these forums for several days now, and what really is retarded is how some (usually the more 'senior' players) seem utterly incapable of presenting, or sometimes even looking at an argument objectively. I won't be at all surprised if i get angry responses to this post, but i've seen a newer player make a decent skin for an RV-8 and be attacked for no reason by a much more experienced skinner for no reason (i forgot the names luckily).
Anyway, my point is that more senior players should not feel they have the right to bash the newer ones around.

Now that that's out of the way, i can see no reason not to introduce a heavily perked B-29 AT SOME POINT, perhaps after a few other planes have been introduced.  The TU-2 sounds great as well.  And whoever had said that B-29 altitudes were unattainable, i have screenshots of an Me-163 at over 40k or 50k feet.  Btw, are the runways long enough for b-29s?

Sorry about the slight diversion from the topic, and for the rants (especially since this is about my 5th post), but i needed to get that out of my system.



Yossarian

[Relorian]

I honestly only have 3 major issues with ever adding the B-29 to AH2.

1. Planelist
There are other planes that NEED to go in first to flesh out other countries bomber/fighter lines. Russia/Italy/Japan all need more represenitave planes before yet another american bomber goes in. We already have the B-17, B24, B25 and b26 not to mention the slew of lighter bombers. There 2 british bombers, 1 japaneese bomber and NO russian or Italian bombers at all.

2. Bombload/"The nuke" problem.
First adding in the b-29 would render most other heavy bombers useless. How many people will want to up a lancaster when they can up the B-29 that carrys 6k more bombs, climbs faster and has more defensiave armament? Whos going to want to up the lesser bombers after that? It would virtually make all other bombers hangerqueens for all but the newest players who cant afford the perks (anyone whos been around even 3 months can have tons of perks). Plus there is the problem of all the people who will then demand the "nuke" be put into the game. Never mind that it would ruin gameplay or that its too large for the current arenas... they would whine and whine and whine like they currently are only more so because the plane would be in the game.

3. the "B-29 Stuka".
For all those who think its already bad with lank-stuka's just ponder what a plane armed with tons of .50 cal machineguns and 20k bombs can do to your CV. Of course the "easy" solution is to take away the capability to glide bomb or bomb outside of the bombsight view but thats a flawed fix. Still though, how many people would whine like babies when that "Heavily perked" bomber with its 2 drones comes glidebombing the cv with 20 1k bombs or 2 10k bombs (If they were added, I know theres supposedly a 4k limit but were going with "wishes" here) or 10 2k bombs or 5 4k bombs?


Maybe after they flesh out the plane lines, add in more deserving bombers/fighters/GV's and then maybe even add some lesser deserving planes like other cargo/troop drop planes, then Id be OK with them adding in something that i honestly believe will ruin gameplay. Hell, id rather even see the Do 335 Pfeil before the B-29.

[Yossarian]

Originally posted by Relorian
I honestly only have 3 major issues with ever adding the B-29 to AH2.

1. Planelist
There are other planes that NEED to go in first to flesh out other countries bomber/fighter lines. Russia/Italy/Japan all need more represenitave planes before yet another american bomber goes in. We already have the B-17, B24, B25 and b26 not to mention the slew of lighter bombers. There 2 british bombers, 1 japaneese bomber and NO russian or Italian bombers at all.

2. Bombload/"The nuke" problem.
First adding in the b-29 would render most other heavy bombers useless. How many people will want to up a lancaster when they can up the B-29 that carrys 6k more bombs, climbs faster and has more defensiave armament? Whos going to want to up the lesser bombers after that? It would virtually make all other bombers hangerqueens for all but the newest players who cant afford the perks (anyone whos been around even 3 months can have tons of perks). Plus there is the problem of all the people who will then demand the "nuke" be put into the game. Never mind that it would ruin gameplay or that its too large for the current arenas... they would whine and whine and whine like they currently are only more so because the plane would be in the game.

3. the "B-29 Stuka".
For all those who think its already bad with lank-stuka's just ponder what a plane armed with tons of .50 cal machineguns and 20k bombs can do to your CV. Of course the "easy" solution is to take away the capability to glide bomb or bomb outside of the bombsight view but thats a flawed fix. Still though, how many people would whine like babies when that "Heavily perked" bomber with its 2 drones comes glidebombing the cv with 20 1k bombs or 2 10k bombs (If they were added, I know theres supposedly a 4k limit but were going with "wishes" here) or 10 2k bombs or 5 4k bombs?


Maybe after they flesh out the plane lines, add in more deserving bombers/fighters/GV's and then maybe even add some lesser deserving planes like other cargo/troop drop planes, then Id be OK with them adding in something that i honestly believe will ruin gameplay. Hell, id rather even see the Do 335 Pfeil before the B-29.

1.  Planelist:
I can't think of any other suitable perked bombers

2.  Bombload/nuke thing
Surely the B-29 could be given such a heavy perk price as to lessen its use
and perhaps the price of the Me163 should be lowered to permit interception.  Also, any noob who managed to get their hands on a 163 would prbbly crash it within a minute or two.

3.  I can't really think of a solution, so good point.

And I agree with your last paragraph, but please see my 1st point.

[moot]

1:  C47 with more troops, or Me323 with GV drop, or even more troops, exotic bomber perk loadouts like the Il2 carried, or even those 37mm Stuka guns, etc.

2:  If the perk price is large enough, making the plane rare enough, the time and effort it took to produce the B29 will have been wasted.  This wasn't an issue with the 262 because it was a lot more vital to the planeset.

[Yossarian]

moot, I agree with number 1, but can you please explain how the B-29 would be so different from the Me-262, as in the B-29 would probably be as heavily perked as the 262, so that a limited number of people would actually fly it.  also, whilst I recognise that the 262 is very important to the game as the only jet fighter, surely the B-29 is also significant in the technology it had (not to mention its infamous role in ending the war).

Yossarian

[moot]

That's the thing, for most of WWII, the B29 wasn't so important.  The 262 was.

[Yossarian]

The Me 262 airframe first flew on 18 April 1941, and it first flew powered only by jets on 18 April 1942.  It didn't see action until the beginning of 1944, only about six months before the B-29 flew its first combat missions.

Yossarian

[moot]

And the B29 made how much difference when it showed up?
The 262 was one of the LW's, and Germany's, last hopes... What did the B29 do that makes it so essential to the AH planeset?

[Yossarian]

It was the plane that devastated several Japanese cities, and also brought the war in the Pacific to an end.

[Gowan]

thats not counting hiroshima and nagasaki, right?

[Yossarian]

I'm talking about all the cities that were destroyed both with that f***ed up carpet bombing residential areas with incendiaries at low level, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki.