I would like the Super Fortress

[5PointOh]

Flipperk,

Thing is, the B-29A (or H8K2) would take a much greater amount of developer work and it would be heavily restricted in use.  Instead of a B-29A HTC could probably do a Wellington Mk III, Do-217E and a Ki-43.

In addition it would only really be useful in scenarios that are extremely lopsided.


Should it be added eventually?  Yes.  But for now there are far better aircraft to add.

We do need more perk bombers, but that can be filled with the A-26 and/or Mosquito B.Mk XVI.

Other bombers that are needed or would be nice:

B6N2 'Jill'
B7A2 'Gracy'
D4Y2 'Judy'
Do217E
G4M2 'Betty'
Hampden Mk I
He111H-16
He177A-5
Ju188A-1
Mosquito B.Mk IV
P1Y1 Ginga 'Frances'
SB2C Helldiver
TBD Devastator
Wellington B.Mk III
P-61A/B "Black Widow"

Research some of those.

hehe fixed

[Castle51]

    Ok, so I was thinking about starting a thread over an idea I had a while back.  Not exactly original but then again when we're talking to a bunch of furballers that are too lazy to fly on a realistic intercept mission, this sounds like a decent alternative.
 
    Introduce perked GV's that are armed with flak cannons.  I'm thinking either a cannon that can be towed by a jeep or half-track and has to be set up before each use, or have a flak cannon on the back of a flat bed truck or tractor trailer (or why not both?).  The cannons could be used as both flak guns or regular artillery and to top it off, you could have a new gunnery mode specifically for using it as a flak gun that would aid (and I do mean AID, not lock on and kill in one hit!!!) the flak crews in tracking and firing on a high altitude bomber flight.
 
      The pros to this would be that in addition to finally having real artillery in the game, you would now have a way to shoot down a high alt. bomber without having to get off your bellybutton and chase it down for more than likely an hour.  The cons would be that like regular puffy ack fired from strats, it wouldn't burst under 5,000 feet and it would be a perked ride, thus making it a little impractical for defending a base against an NOE raid (so yes, the NOE lanc runs that you all love so much will still be a viable option ) but more useful for hitting high altitude contacts within minutes of detecting them. 

      Again this is just a ruff idea and is VERY open for improvement so I'd love to hear the feedback on this one.

[TheAce]

      Introduce perked GV's that are armed with flak cannons.  I'm thinking either a cannon that can be towed by a jeep or half-track and has to be set up before each use, or have a flak cannon on the back of a flat bed truck or tractor trailer (or why not both?).  The cannons could be used as both flak guns or regular artillery and to top it off, you could have a new gunnery mode specifically for using it as a flak gun that would aid (and I do mean AID, not lock on and kill in one hit!!!) the flak crews in tracking and firing on a high altitude bomber flight.
 
      The pros to this would be that in addition to finally having real artillery in the game, you would now have a way to shoot down a high alt. bomber without having to get off your bellybutton and chase it down for more than likely an hour.  The cons would be that like regular puffy ack fired from strats, it wouldn't burst under 5,000 feet and it would be a perked ride, thus making it a little impractical for defending a base against an NOE raid (so yes, the NOE lanc runs that you all love so much will still be a viable option ) but more useful for hitting high altitude contacts within minutes of detecting them. 

 

      Not exactly original but then again when we're talking to a bunch of furballers that are too lazy to fly on a realistic intercept mission, this sounds like a decent alternative.

      The pros to this would be that in addition to finally having real artillery in the game, you would now have a way to shoot down a high alt. bomber without having to get off your bellybutton and chase it down for more than likely an hour. 

Lazy bellybutton fighter jocks always poo-pooing every bomber idea so that HiTech will work on their precious fighters instead.

[DavonRG]

then the would complain that the bombers don't always fly in perfectly strait lines or that their flak rounds don't come with heat seeking heads. 

[Guppy35]

  :rockLazy bellybutton fighter jocks always poo-pooing every bomber idea so that HiTech will work on their precious fighters instead.

This is a beauty of a quote.  Explain to me how a B29 with that bombload is going to make buff drivers more precise and work harder?  Seems like it's a  lazy bellybutton bomber pilot request to make ruining the fight easier

[Noir]

This is a beauty of a quote.  Explain to me how a B29 with that bombload is going to make buff drivers more precise and work harder?  Seems like it's a  lazy bellybutton bomber pilot request to make ruining the fight easier

Give him 6 months and he will be allover the fighters. I started with bombers too.

[trigger2]

and I do mean AID, not lock on and kill in one hit!!! the flak crews in tracking and firing on a high altitude bomber flight.

...Are you saying an 88mm EXPLOSIVE gun to the wing wouldn't blow the crap out of an aircraft carrying 20,000 lbs of high explosives and god knows how much fuel, rather it would just "love tap" the aircraft into slight submission? Something about this logic seems off...

This is a beauty of a quote.  Explain to me how a B29 with that bombload is going to make buff drivers more precise and work harder?  Seems like it's a lazy bellybutton bomber pilot request to make ruining the fight easier

Took the words straight out of my mouth, cause see, we "lazy bellybutton fighter pilots" who up, don't set auto climb, we defend your precious airfield that you launch your worthless bomber sorties out after (Lone bomber is really quite worthless for the most part, a group of bombers, bomber/attack or even bomber/fighter on the other hand can be handy) looking for an "epic" score. While you hold down your "U" key and press your "fire secondary" button after making a couple light nudges, we're on brink of a stall in a 5v1. So if you'd like to maybe tone down the complaining a bit... it'd be appreciated, especially as we gave a list of other bombers that are much more IMPORTANT to being added to the game, and would take MUCH less time and effort to being added.

The b-29 would disrupt gameplay, no doubt, I don't care if it has a perk of 1,000, bomber perks are easy to get, and you don't have much to spend 'em on. Limit them, okay, so I'm gonna be AFK for an hour, let's launch a b-29 in this direction and set auto climb... come back, ah, right on target... The b-29 should be added EVENTUALLY, but not for a long while, we have much more prevalent aircraft that need to be added first.

EDIT: Couple of grammatical mistakes... oops.

[CaptainFokker]

The problem is that there are only 2 or 3 true "heavy bombers" in the game - The Lancaster III, B-17, and B-24.


When it's a well known fact that the allies has many more heavy bombers. And while there are a total of what, 16 bombers in the game - how many of them can actually carry more than 8,000 lbs of ordnance? Thank you come again.

Also, I'll have to agree with someone else that posted in this thread in regards to the "furballers".
As I recall, this is a game that allows use of ground, sea, and air vehicles - with some degree of historical accuracy (as-in, only aircraft that were operational during WWII being in the game). But we seem to be missing the fact that the B-29 was a highly used aircraft in the latter period of the war - come to think of it, it's the one that brought it to an END.

And while I don't care much for any ideas of it having "unconventional weapons", ie (NUKES), that was not the only instance in which the B29 was used. Sure, we used them to nuke Japan, twice - but I think alot of people seem to be overlooking how many other sorties the B29 flew. I'm quite sure it flew a hell of alot more than some of the planes that are included in the game, for instance the Me-262.

[Noir]

When it's a well known fact that the allies has many more heavy bombers. And while there are a total of what, 16 bombers in the game - how many of them can actually carry more than 8,000 lbs of ordnance? Thank you come again.

How many could carry that much in reality ? The only ones we don't have I can think off are the other 4 engined RAF night bombers, and maybe a Russian one if you throw a couple crewmen overboard...

come to think of it, it's the one that brought it to an END.

Erm...err.... ....something is so disturbing in that statement.

but I think alot of people seem to be overlooking how many other sorties the B29 flew

I remember someone talking about the ratio of combat sorties against the total number of sorties, it was interesting....

[TheAce]

So if you'd like to maybe tone down the complaining a bit... it'd be appreciated, especially as we gave a list of other bombers that are much more IMPORTANT to being added to the game, and would take MUCH less time and effort to being added.

How am I the one that needs to tone down the complaining when almost every thread I click on your poo-pooing their idea? Hmmmm, interesting isn't it?     

[trigger2]

How am I the one that needs to tone down the complaining when almost every thread I click on your poo-pooing their idea? Hmmmm, interesting isn't it?     

Well, once your 2 weeks are up...

See, as my sig. says, most wonderful time of the year...
Summer brings out the kiddies that bring up ideas that have been brought up a million times before and have been shot down for normally more than 1 great reason. I support ideas that could benifit the game, not disrupt it.

[1DOGFITE]

Even with the perk being absurdly high, it would still be disruptful. A single b-29 could drop an airfield and then some...

But how could that ever be a problem?

I already take out a small airfield by myself in Lancs.....But, I think we do need another "Perk" bomber.

[Karnak]

I already take out a small airfield by myself in Lancs.....But, I think we do need another "Perk" bomber.

A-26 or Mosquito B.Mk XVI will fill that role just fine, without sucking off as much dev time.

[CaptainFokker]

How many could carry that much in reality ? The only ones we don't have I can think off are the other 4 engined RAF night bombers, and maybe a Russian one if you throw a couple crewmen overboard...

Let's see.

The B-17 had a MAX payload of 17,600 lbs of ordnance (short range - reduced fuel load)
The B-24 had an internal payload of 8,000 lbs, when using optional external bomb racks
Then there's the B-29 that could handle up to 20,000 pounds.

So, there's 3 - and they're all american WWII aircraft.

EDIT: I have the B17 and B24 listed because apparently the game has inaccurate payloads. The B24 in-game only allows 6000lbs, and the B-24 has 8,000lbs (all internal) which is inaccurate.


Source: http://www.globalaircraft.org/

[Motherland]

I'm quite sure it flew a hell of alot more than some of the planes that are included in the game, for instance the Me-262.

Surely it did fly more than some, but you bring up an interesting point in the Me 262. How many flew would be one thing, as Germany was very very short on fuel by the time the Me 262 entered service, but many more Me 262's were produced than people think- in fact, well over 1,000 were produced.

Out of curiosity, how many B-29's were produced during the war?

Let's see.

The B-17 had a MAX payload of 17,600 lbs of ordnance (short range - reduced fuel load)
The B-24 had an internal payload of 8,000 lbs, when using optional external bomb racks
Then there's the B-29 that could handle up to 20,000 pounds.

So, there's 3 - and they're all american WWII aircraft.


Source: http://www.globalaircraft.org/

How many could carry that much in reality ? The only ones we don't have I can think off are the other 4 engined RAF night bombers, and maybe a Russian one if you throw a couple crewmen overboard...