Can we get a B-52 in the game?

[Low Blow]

Seems odd to me that a cold war era RTS is missing this iconic bomber.

[MticiansRed]

It can be logical only as offmap support. But there's no offmap support.

[Low Blow]

Originally posted by JKesel:

It can be logical only as offmap support. But there's no offmap support.

I really don't see your justification for what you've said here. There's no reason for why the implementation of it on-map can't be something similar to how the Su-24M or F-111 with a stick of HE bombs behaves in Wargame Red Dragon, albeit flying slower and dropping a stick of bombs maybe twice as long. More vulnerability for more destruction.

[[EUG] MadMat]

Originally posted by Low Blow:

Can we get a B-52 in the game?

No, it is out of scale.

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Seeing as how the Mirage IV, a strategic bomber that was designed for carrying nuclear weapons was included in the game despite Eugen saying they would not include strategic assets or nuclear weapons, I don’t see why the B-52 couldn’t be in game. Sadly that’s one of Eugen’s hallmarks now though, the creation of silly rules and then the immediate disregard and breaking of them.

[soldier6661111]

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

Originally posted by Low Blow:

Can we get a B-52 in the game?

No, it is out of scale.

F-117 isnt? Mirage IV isn't? Mig-31M isn't?

What a joke. "It's out of scale" Why? "Big plane too big"

LMAO made the edit prior to seeing the below response

[[EUG] MadMat]

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

Seeing as how the Mirage IV, a strategic bomber that was designed for carrying nuclear weapons was included in the game despite Eugen saying they would not include strategic assets or nuclear weapons, I don’t see why the B-52 couldn’t be in game. Sadly that’s one of Eugen’s hallmarks now though, the creation of silly rules and then the immediate disregard and breaking of them.

We do, and all your whining and constant accusations won't change a thing to it.

B-52 is out of scale because it is way TOO BIG.

[BlackFoxSamaki]

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

Originally posted by BlackFoxSamaki:

Seeing as how the Mirage IV, a strategic bomber that was designed for carrying nuclear weapons was included in the game despite Eugen saying they would not include strategic assets or nuclear weapons, I don’t see why the B-52 couldn’t be in game. Sadly that’s one of Eugen’s hallmarks now though, the creation of silly rules and then the immediate disregard and breaking of them.

We do, and all your whinning and constant accusations won't change a thing to it.

B-52 is out of scale because it is way TOO BIG.

Well at least you admit you constantly break the rules you yourselves make. Why bother making them in the first place when you know you’re going to ignore them? All that does is cause drama and grief because you’re telling people something and then immediately proving what you said to be false. People obviously get upset when you do that. Your news post said you don’t want to piss players off, well then stop telling people things that you know you’re not going to follow through on!

[Low Blow]

What exactly about its size precludes it from being implemented into the game? Have you coded a limit to this in the engine or something?

Also, your tone is distinctly out of step with your Mea Culpa post. What's the point of apologising to your customers if on the discussion boards you are going to conduct yourself in an openly hostile manner?

[soldier6661111]

Originally posted by Low Blow:

What exactly about its size precludes it from being implemented into the game? Have you coded a limit to this in the engine or something?

Also, your tone is distinctly out of step with your Mea Culpa post. What's the point of apologising to your customers if on the discussion boards you are going to conduct yourself in an openly hostile manner?

Right, from this in their latest Dev post :

"We listen to you, and we take all feedback on board, reviewing each and every comment before we decide to act on it (or not)."

To this:

"We do, and all your whining and constant accusations won't change a thing to it."

[[EUG] MadMat]

Originally posted by soldier6661111:

Right, from this in their latest Dev post :

"We listen to you, and we take all feedback on board, reviewing each and every comment before we decide to act on it (or not)."

There's a difference between rants & constructive feedbacks.

[Low Blow]

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

Originally posted by soldier6661111:

Right, from this in their latest Dev post :

"We listen to you, and we take all feedback on board, reviewing each and every comment before we decide to act on it (or not)."

There's a difference between rants & constructive feedbacks.

And there is a difference between being sincerely apologetic for a car crash of a game release and how you are addressing us now.

[soldier6661111]

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

Originally posted by soldier6661111:

Right, from this in their latest Dev post :

"We listen to you, and we take all feedback on board, reviewing each and every comment before we decide to act on it (or not)."

There's a difference between rants & constructive feedbacks.

Alright, well this game should be focused on scope, not scale. F-117, MiG-31M and Mirage IV are not within the scope of this game. The size of the plane should not dictate whether it is in the game or not, but whether it fits the scope. Focusing on scale/size is leading to an incoherent message. That's what is leading to these questions, suggestions and arguments.

[Low Blow]

Originally posted by Nero:

Originally posted by EUG MadMat:

No, it is out of scale.

This is a perfectly neutral response from the devs to provide clarity. There's no reason for this hostility towards the developer. Have you looked at it in the pictures? It really is way too big and a strategical asset.

Can we have a final word on the Mig31? I'm really sick and tired of it being brought up.

I was referring to the way he disrespectfully commented about "whining and constant accusations". Is that how he interprets this request for an iconic cold war bomber? Have you read Eugen's most recent Mea Culpa apology? I am completely correct to point out that his tone is polar opposite to this post by Eugen. Is he even employed by the same company?

Also, he has provided no in-depth explanation for why it is too large of a unit. These maps are kilometres wide and there are already several large airborne assets in play.

The F-111 HE variant in the game will drop a stick of 12 MK-82s. So, it's irrefutable that carpet bombing is within the scope of the game. As soldier has pointed out, unit physical size is irrelevant on a maps that are kilometres wide. A B-52 has a wingspan of 52 metres. What does this matter on a map that is 5 kilometres wide or more? That's right, it doesn't matter.

[ericxxx77]

well, the map isn't big enough to fit B-52.
payload of B-52 is 70,000 pounds, compared to Mirage IV's 16,000 pounds.
over 4 times bombs.
Considering Mirage IV's bombing now, if we got one B-52, it will wipe out half the map, and all your opponent's controlled district. A B-52 should cost 1500 points? And if you save points to get 1 B-52, all your enemy need to do is get interceptors.
It will break the balance of the game. Maybe it will be fun vs AI, but not fair in MP.

[Low Blow]

Originally posted by ericxxx77:

well, the map isn't big enough to fit B-52.
payload of B-52 is 70,000 pounds, compared to Mirage IV's 16,000 pounds.
over 4 times bombs.
Considering Mirage IV's bombing now, if we got one B-52, it will wipe out half the map, and all your opponent's controlled district. A B-52 should cost 1500 points? And if you save points to get 1 B-52, all your enemy need to do is get interceptors.
It will break the balance of the game. Maybe it will be fun vs AI, but not fair in MP.

Nobody here is saying that the B-52 has to carry a full complement of MK-82s. I was going to suggest 24 MK-82s, so double the area that the F-111 HE will damage.

In any event, it looks like Eugen are completely closed off to the idea so there's no point in discussing it further.