Hating on the Heinkel

[Lukanian-7]

I am wondering why so much of the community disaproves the HE-111.

Not trying to be a smartass or get flamed, but I'm quite confident it was used a lot, and should'nt be unbalancing; yet, many players cringe at the mere thought of it.

Reason?

[moot]

Hangar queen.

[Lukanian-7]

Really?Noone would fly it?

albeit I would but--

[1Boner]

I don't think anyone really "disapproves" of it.

Most people want planes that are fast and have tons of firepower etc.

You really can't blame them, its just human nature.

The way I look at it, more planes are coming, I'm not gonna get all flustered if a plane comes and I don't like the choice.

My choice will eventually come.

Patience.

[Lusche]

Actually many. many planes do not cringe at the mere thought of it but do really wish for the He-111.


90% of those will fly it a few times in MA, then drop it for more "capable" planes.

See P-39

[sethipus]

The funny thing is that people still fly formations of Bostons, and B-25Cs, and it would be easy to argue that both of those are very poor choices in comparison to some type of bomber or other.  They really should be hangar queens too, but people do fly them.

If only just for the scenarios, the midwar and early war arenas, and things like that the HE-111 should be in the game.  Heck, I'd fly them sometimes in the LW arenas jsut because they look friggin awesome.  And I'm not alone in that.

[Lusche]

The funny thing is that people still fly formations of Bostons, and B-25Cs, and it would be easy to argue that both of those are very poor choices in comparison to some type of bomber or other.  They really should be hangar queens too, but people do fly them.

B-25C are hangar queens in MW & LW.

[Greebo]

Some want a particular ride introduced because it will be uber in the MA; B-29, King Tiger etc. Of course all three sides will get the ride, so I'm not sure why. Other's want something because they have a historical attachment to it; i.e. Finns and the Brewster.

The He-111 would be a hangar queen in the MA, its usefulness would be for special events. It, or for that matter a Wellington, SM79, Betty, IL-4 etc, could sub for each other much better than the too-fast Boston or Ju88 currently can. Our early war fighters often have trouble keeping up with these two bombers, let alone shooting them down.

[Motherland]

The He-111 would be a hangar queen in the MA, its usefulness would be for special events. It, or for that matter a Wellington, SM79, Betty, IL-4 etc, could sub for each other much better than the too-fast Boston or Ju88 currently can. Our early war fighters often have trouble keeping up with these two bombers, let alone shooting them down.

The Boston III is actually faster than the Bf.109E. 

[E25280]

B-25C are hangar queens in MW & LW.

I often wonder if the EW and MW arenas would see more use if the early plane sets were filled out a bit more.

[Lusche]

I often wonder if the EW and MW arenas would see more use if the early plane sets were filled out a bit more.

It could have some positive impact... but in EW, most players would still end up in the unperked and relatively high ENY Hurricane IIC

But aside from having more choices and maybe a more thought out perk policy in EW, there would have to be more balances and ajustments in settings. More GVS. Less ack on bases and maybe even CVs - the ack setting is made to balance gameplay in LW with all those cannon-wielding high speed jabos.

[Ack-Ack]

B-25C are hangar queens in MW & LW.

Yep, in most cases in the MW arena, if you see a B-25 flying around it's going to be the H model doing anti-GV work.


ack-ack

[thndregg]

Most people treat this wishlist forum like an arms race (not fast enough, underpowered this & that, not enough ammo, blah, blah, blah). So what? Bring in the hangar queens. They add to the plane set that encompasses WW2 from start to finish. It definitely helps those who host scenarios. It adds to the fun & flavor of the game.

[Rich46yo]

I dont think its "hated" or the idea behind it is "hated".

How often do we get a new bomber? Maybe once a year? If that much? Thing is there are some major holes in the bomber selection, one of them being only one perked bomber that very few guys fly much. And we are all drowning in bomber perks that we never use.

No Russian level bomber yet. Holes in the Brit and Jap set. And here comes the 111 to sit next to the bomber that replaced it, which isn't used much either, and which we already have.

My belief is we need a perked bomber and/or a Russian bomber next. Best of all would be both at one time, "but they aint going to happen". There really are only two perked bomber possibilities. One of them, that we dont dare name, might actually be exciting enough to get guys to fly them, dump their points, and then fly lesser bombers to build points back to fly again, "the plane we dont dare name" So that "we dont dare name" would probably reinvigorate the bomber/strat war cause its so cool. The other option is the A-26 .

My hope is for a Russian bomber this year. That doesn't mean I hate the thought of a HE-111 .

[danny37]

I am wondering why so much of the community disaproves the HE-111.

Not trying to be a smartass or get flamed, but I'm quite confident it was used a lot, and should'nt be unbalancing; yet, many players cringe at the mere thought of it.

Reason?

for 1, it was mostly used as night bomber in the battle of britain and the blitz,2 it was easy prey,3 it was not a significant contribution to the war other than maybe as a troop/supply transport/torp carrier/ glider tug.and was pretty much replaced by the ju-88 in the bomber role.
http://www.historyofwar.org/articles/weapons_he111_peter.html
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/heinkel_iii.htm
not knockin your wish just some possiblities to why it most likely wont be added.