B29 WINS!!!!!!

[Jayhawk]

Well shoot, the 91st has a surplus we can send you.

[skribetm]

Can't wait to fly this mutha'   

MOM mission ETA? 

[Zoney]

Excellent !  Another plane added to a game that was great when I started and keeps giving me more than I originally signed up for.  BONUS!  A well known, and popular plane also.  Maybe something to lure a few more new players to this great community.  Maybe the next guy checking out whether he should sign up or not, sees the availibily of the B29 and thats what finally gets him to plunk his 15 bucks down.

I love the high altitude "intercept the buffs chess match" we already have.  More challenge, more fun.

[cooldued]

hay when you post the development screen shots get a good one of the nose. i like how it looks its cool like my name. hehehe i bet it wont fit in the hanger 

Excellent !  Another plane added to a game that was great when I started and keeps giving me more than I originally signed up for.  BONUS!  A well known, and popular plane also.  Maybe something to lure a few more new players to this great community.  Maybe the next guy checking out whether he should sign up or not, sees the availibily of the B29 and thats what finally gets him to plunk his 15 bucks down.

I love the high altitude "intercept the buffs chess match" we already have.  More challenge, more fun.

sounds good to me

[The Fugitive]

Fugitive, You said that years ago people would have voted by its HISTORICAL IMPORTANCE. Your words. I could get the quote but can't be bothered going back through 6 pages to find it. If that was true the HE 111 would have been in a long time ago. Are you honestly trying to tell me that the HE 111 wasn't important? I know your smarter than that.

My point was not that people would know the HE 111 more than the B29. I would always say people in High School with a basic knowledge in WW2 would know a B29 more than a HE111. I was arguing the fact that you say that the B29 would not have been voted in since it was not as historically important as other planes. Surely, SURELY a plane that served from 1939-1945 across all the ETO, through many differant guises is more Historially important? In which case, why was it not added 10 years ago?

But that is my point, 90% today's player couldn't tell you how many engines are on a HE111, but 10 years ago 90% of the players not only would know that, but all sorts more information. I hardly think an informed group would have picked the B29 out of that group of planes. It would NOT have been ignored due to its history, but all of the other planes would have been given more due only because the players back then were more into the "history" of the game. Todays players are mostly those out to get the best score and win the war. They have little or no knowledge of the history of the planes and vehicles, nor of their uses.

Read the "wish list" most of the wishes are for things that make winning the war faster and easier. uber planes, uber vehicles, game play changes that take away the challenge of the game. For the most part, today's players haven't got a clue about WWII. The B29 won because it was the only plane on the list they recognized, or thought will carry more bombs faster to the site they wish to flatten, that's it.

[whiteman]

The real winners here are the ones that voted for the B29, not fly it but just for the entrainment/paranoia value it has already added to the board.

[skribetm]

speaking of bombers. just got done watching WW2inHD "The Air War" (Europe).
didnt know the 8thAF lost 26,000 men, more than the marines did in all of WW2.

  to the Veterans.

[oneway]

From the picture on the main page, it is safe to assume that it's the A model that we'll be getting.  Honestly, other than extending the runways to so the B-29 could take off (Currently, runways aren't long enough) there really isn't anything that needs to be done for the sake of game play that would require the B-29 to be nerfed in anyway.

It's going to take a long time for the B-29 to climb to high altitudes, and they will be extremely vulnerable at this stage.  They're going to be a tricky nut to crack but I look at it as a challenge.  I can honestly say that I have turned completely around about the B-29 since I did a little more in-depth research into both the A and B models.  Other than a hefty perk price and maybe only allowing single ships instead of formations, I don't see any negatives to the B-29 being added.  

If we had gotten the B model instead, well, then maybe my views wouldn't have changed that readily.

ack-ack

The one thing that I overlooked, and I am a bit concerned about (and yes I voted for the B-29), is that IF the plane is perked...this may result in the unintended consequence of bomber pilots running noe milk runs in normal un-perked bombers to pad bomber perks...

I hope this is not the case...

Out

Oneway

Edit: Logical and potential common sense restrictions for the B-29:

1) Restrict them to rear bases, along the lines of the 163...except more than just one base...make it time expensive to fly them to discourage potential abuse
2) Perk them at a reasonable level (less than the 234)
3) Possible reduction in present bomb perk points awarded for other bombers to discourage milk running

There are ways to manage this and make a ton of fun for the pro bomber guys, while kneecapping the gamers who abuse level bombers...

[Lusche]

..this may result in the unintended consequence of bomber pilots running noe milk runs in normal un-perked bombers to pad bomber perks...

This would be a bad way to get perks. You do not really want to get shot down when perk farming in a buff

The most efficient ways to get perks are ) traditional role: To inflict a lot of damage, kill a few fighters and then get home and land
or b) Kill gvs in a low eny bomber like the B5N (you can really rack up a lot of perks in short time by doing that - been there, done that.)

[oneway]

This would be a bad way to get perks. You do not really want to get shot down when perk farming in a buff

The most efficient ways to get perks are ) traditional role: To inflict a lot of damage, kill a few fighters and then get home and land
or b) Kill gvs in a low eny bomber like the B5N (you can really rack up a lot of perks in short time by doing that - been there, done that.)

I completely agree Lusche...the other thing that makes a difference in big perks is not losing drones...

Perk farmers should be drawn and quartered...

I sure hope they restrict them to the rear bases...the last thing I want is to have them get a bad name because some rotten apples abuse them from middle and forward bases...serious bomber pilots don't mind at all flying 2 plus hour missions...

 

[Lusche]

Perk farmers should be drawn and quartered...

Dumb question: Why?
Is it bad to fly a high eny plane, earn some perks and then spend it on low eny planes? I mean, that's what the perk system was made for.
I used to earn a lot of perks in 109F &G, 190A-5, and then I spend them on 262's and Tempests (I lost perk planes with a combined unmodified net worth of 42,000 perks)

If I would play AH when the B-29 is being introduced, I would skip my trusty Hurri D for a tour and go back to the B5N... for obvious reasons

I sure hope they restrict them to the rear bases.

That one will absolutely guarantee that the B-29 you will see are at maximum possible altitude. You would deprive yourself of all the fun of shooting down heavily perked bombers on climbout at 5k  

Perks alone are quite a good tool to regulate overall usage.

[oneway]

Lusche,

I am a bomber pilot that flies the bomber the way it was designed to be used...I take the time to fly from rear bases already...I hope they force them to be flown from rear bases so dweebs won't up them and abuse them...

Also I dislike the perk farming bomber guys who sneak around noe when the arena load is light pumping up their objects destroyed...

I will add one more restriction I would like to see on the B-29 (keep in mind I am going to be flying them)....I would like to see a minimum altitude for level drop of something along the lines of at least 3k if not 5k...heck I would even be happy to see it 10k...

The last thing I want to see is guys doing the Lanka Stuka thing in B-29's...maybe your right the perk thing will prevent that...I hope so

Out

Oneway

[lyric1]

[Lusche]

I will add one more restriction I would like to see on the B-29 (keep in mind I am going to be flying them)....I would like to see a minimum altitude for level drop of something along the lines of at least 3k if not 5k...heck I would even be happy to see it 10k...

I'm strongly against any artificial performance limits to guide gameplay into way perceived "right" direction.  Could a bomber open the doors and drop from 1k? Why should our not.
This would be the same thing as giving fighters a front quarter invulnerability to "prevent Hoing"

And don't forget, noe bombers do rarely survive at all in AH. Base & town ack will shred you. And if they don't, a single fighter guy will drool about the easy kills.
I'm sure most fighter guys will be much more happy about noe buffs than those at "realistic" 24k


On a final note... I'm quite uncomfortable with the term "abuse".
We often resort to completely different tactics - not only in bombers but also fighters and GV - because the combat environment is a completely different than the real WW2 one. Tactics are the result of circumstances.

[W7LPNRICK]

Thats it.  I QUIT 

for two weeks right?