Jump to content


US tech tree


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
252 replies to this topic

James_White #1 Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:17 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Developer
  • 0 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    10-05-2011
Posted Image
More info about US fighters
More info about US Carrier-based fighters

WarDog666 #2 Posted 21 December 2011 - 12:36 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 13
  • Member since:
    12-20-2011
Very nice :) Came before two hours too

“I have a very strict gun control policy: if there's a gun around, I want to be in control of it.” -Clint Eastwood

xthetenth #3 Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:15 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 74 battles
  • 1,250
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
I'm a bit worried about the huge focus on Vought designs in the Carrier based tree. Grumman fighters were the iconic choice of the US Navy well into the seventies, and they had some great fighters. Instead there's currently:

  • Boeing (makes sense)
  • Grumman
  • Grumman
  • Brewster
  • Grumman
  • Vought
  • Vought design elaborated upon by Goodyear
  • Vought prototype
  • Vought
  • Vought

The early planes are dominated by Grumman, but even they're broken up. The tier 7 F2G is basically an upengined version of the tier 6 F4U renamed because a different manufacturer made it, which is an even bigger repeat than the P-51A to P-51 change on the land tree. If I had my way with that, I'd put the F6F in tier 6 and roll the F2G into the F4U at tier 7, because without the F6F the tree just feels like it's missing something. I'd also personally prefer the F9F Panther and or Cougar in place of the F6U or F7U, since the F6U pirate is simply ugly and the F9F Panther is a major USN plane type, with over a thousand built, and the same production numbers argument applies to the F9F Cougar compared to the F7U. The F7U is very cool looking though, so I think it'd make a good choice while the F6U has little to commend it from a production standpoint or a visual perspective. I'd much rather a plane that saw active service than a type which BuAer declared "so sub-marginal in performance that combat utilization is not feasible."

I think I'd overall prefer if tier 6 onwards looked like this:

6. F6F Hellcat
7. F4U Corsair
8. F7F Tigercat
9. F9F Panther
10. F7U Cutlass

However that might make for some issues with a heavy Grumman focus. However, the tree would be primarily made up of successful planes with good records (even the F7F performed better than the XF5U) and it would represent more key naval types that made up a significant fraction of the USN air strength at the time. The other option I wouldn't mind was if the tree split, with most of the current Vought designs becoming fighter-bombers and the Grumman planes becoming fighters.


The land based fighter tree looks excellent, and I'm glad to see the Hawk 75M. It was a good plane. The only things missing are the P-38 and P-47 and they'd fit in well in the fighter-bomber tree.

James_White #4 Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:22 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Developer
  • 0 battles
  • 637
  • Member since:
    10-05-2011

View Postxthetenth, on 21 December 2011 - 03:15 PM, said:

I'm a bit worried about the huge focus on Vought designs in the Carrier based tree.
All the other manufacturers will be represented in the other coming tech tree branches. There's no need to worry

shnbwmn #5 Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 1,218
  • Member since:
    10-19-2011
My prime focus will be the P-51 when I'm grinding the US tree  :)

Posted Image

Ask and I'll try to help you | shnbwmn.blogspot.com | My Signatures

Dutchoper72 #6 Posted 21 December 2011 - 03:45 PM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 24
  • Member since:
    11-25-2011
Will there be more planes for this tree?

Wallie81 #7 Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:21 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 216
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
This is a joke, right?

If this is really official, I suggest you sack the person responsible for historical research.

The FJ-1 is a NAVY aircraft. NAVY, you know, carriers. Why is it in the non-carrier branch. You need to substitute it with the P-80.

"The Vought F6U Pirate was the company's first jet fighter, designed for US Navy during the mid-1940s. Although pioneering the use of turbojet power as the first naval fighter with an afterburner and composite material construction, the aircraft proved to be underpowered and was judged unsuitable for combat. None were ever issued to operational squadrons and they were relegated to development, training and test roles before they were withdrawn from service in 1950."

Why is this plane in there? Substitute it with either F9F Panther or F2H Banshee or FJ-1 which would place it in the correct branch (see above).

I understand that it might be hard to find suitable aircraft to fit into your tier system, but 3x P-51?

I had hoped this might game might actually be worth spending money on, but if this is the best you folks can do ...

xthetenth #8 Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 74 battles
  • 1,250
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
It might be better just to give up the pretenses and just say that it's currently the start of the two early fighter trees which focus on Curtiss and Grumman, and then the end of two of them, those being the North American and Vought trees, which is how it seems to be organized right now. I'm definitely fine with doing them by manufacturer and with the use of potential engines for planes that never got off the drawing board, like so many tanks in WoT use engines that were tested or had design studies done for them. If we get the major frontline types like the F6F, F9F, and others, getting some of the pioneering designs that were a bit ahead of the requirements to make them work with the benefit of those components would be awesome.

There are some good and cool tanks in WoT that would've been disasters in combat unless they had the benefit of stuff beyond the capacity of their countries' industries to supply en masse, so why shouldn't there be some in WoWP?

I think the designs the US tech tree definitely needs that aren't in yet are the P-38, P-47, F6F, and F9F. The F2H and P-63 would be very nice to see. On the strike side, the SBD, SB2C are the only real keys.

commando2227 #9 Posted 21 December 2011 - 09:53 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
What would be the difference between the P51-A and the P51?Would the P51 be a later model,such as D?



WoWp drinking game: Drink when a post about being accepted into CBT,how Brit/Japanese planes should be added,about why no beta key yet, a thread that should be in beta section is in open section or how something should be added when devs have said no.

Wallie81 #10 Posted 22 December 2011 - 12:21 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 216
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
Historically the P-51A differs from later models in that it was powered by an Allison engine. This engine lacked power at high altitude and therefore the P-51A usually stayed below 20,000ft.
The P-51B, C and D were all powered by a licence built Rolls-Royce Merlin engine.

I suspect that they indeed are using the P-51 label to encompass these 3 models. (Essentially its only 2 models since the B and C are identical and the letter only indicates in which factory they were built.)

This is all speculation tho, and it might turn out to be something completely different. It all depends on the sanity and competence of the people composing these "tech trees".

I wouldn't have minded the odd prototype plane here and there but I already pointed out at least 2 big blunders in this "official" tree. (see my previous post in this thread)
I wonder why they do this. Why do they sidestep better and expected choices in favor of unknown junk. I don't think this is a valid decision if you want to attract US customers.

commando2227 #11 Posted 22 December 2011 - 08:57 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
Ok,but couldn't you theoretically encompass the engine change,amongst other changes,into modules?3 tiers of P-51s is IMO overdoing it.



WoWp drinking game: Drink when a post about being accepted into CBT,how Brit/Japanese planes should be added,about why no beta key yet, a thread that should be in beta section is in open section or how something should be added when devs have said no.

xthetenth #12 Posted 22 December 2011 - 10:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 74 battles
  • 1,250
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
The turbosupercharged Merlin engine is a huge leap, and so is adding a Jet engine. If the trees are structured by manufacturer, then these are the best choices shy of merging two lines. If one of the lightened Mustangs were used for the Jet testbed, it'd likely be a significantly more maneuverable and faster fighter. Basically if the plane got to fit a late model Merlin and an early Allison, one of the two would not be appropriate for its tier, likely the same for the Jet version. Also, the fuselage for the A variant is significantly different looking. The Jet Mustang also looks very different.

Also, I'd say that for the Vought tree, those planes could've had their engines uprated to make for viable combat units, so it's not too big a deal if they want to have those planes in in order to allow a tree for each manufacturer. For example, the J34-WE-36 with 4,000 lbf of thrust would likely be sufficient for use. I'm not sure whether the J46 would've been too large but it definitely would supply sufficient thrust.

commando2227 #13 Posted 23 December 2011 - 01:25 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 542
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
Alright then.Thanks for the info.



WoWp drinking game: Drink when a post about being accepted into CBT,how Brit/Japanese planes should be added,about why no beta key yet, a thread that should be in beta section is in open section or how something should be added when devs have said no.

ket101 #14 Posted 23 December 2011 - 02:12 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 30
  • [N-O-M] N-O-M
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
On a pedantic note, the Merlin wasn't turbo-supercharged.  Turbo is generally, and in common usage, to indicate the use of exhaust gases to provide the supercharging effect (whether by increasing the pressure of the inlet gases or by direct mechanical linkage to the drivetrain), and the supercharger/s (high altitude and later versions used two superchargers to increase the amount of air going in) on the Merlin were strictly mechanically driven. Turbo-supercharging, or just turbocharging, was a favourite method of boosting US aircraft engines, viz. P38 Lightning, P47 Thunderbolt, etc., but English engines were almost exclusively supercharged, ie mechanically driven superchargers.

xthetenth #15 Posted 23 December 2011 - 03:15 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 74 battles
  • 1,250
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
Blech, that's what I get for posting on my phone rather than checking first. I don't make stupid mistakes like that when I'm going to check them.

Wallie81 #16 Posted 23 December 2011 - 07:42 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 0 battles
  • 216
  • Member since:
    10-22-2011
If it is indeed the fact that performance differs so much from early to late model P-51s then I understand that they split them into different tiers. However, its all speculation at this point. We don't know how performance will be modelled ingame and how well it will reflect the real world data that is available to us.

I also understand that crap aircraft can become more viable if they have access to proposed upgrades that were never made.

But that still leaves the fact that they put a Navy aircraft in the Air Force branch. Branching on manufacturer AND service usage are in conflict. Do either one or the other, not both.

If they really have a full tech tree with all the other manufacturers why did they pick these aircraft for release. Some stupid business strategy no doubt, I hope it blows up in their face.

Also, in this US Aircraft video trailer that's been going around, the P-39 is featured. Where is it on the tech tree then?

gurgonis #17 Posted 24 December 2011 - 02:33 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 0 battles
  • 175
  • Member since:
    10-31-2011
Am i mistaken or is P-12 able to take off from a carrier , and if yes will the Germans have a counterpart? (Germans are probably getting Ardos tho .) And if the USSR get the I-15 ... Poor ardos
“When everything seems to be going against you, remember that the airplane takes off against the wind, not with it.”


Dunewarrior #18 Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:08 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 232 battles
  • 211
  • [M-I-T] M-I-T
  • Member since:
    11-02-2011
Some interesting planes, but also some interesting decisions on which planes made the release tree.

Oh yea, the FJ-1 is a navy, carrier based plane. It doesn't belong in the ground fighters tree. The P80 works better in that slot.
Raven may be incredibly rude, but http://tvtropes.org/...erkassHasAPoint
0


I'm interested in seeing the "full" tree now! Damn, my thirst for info is insatiable!

Made by RexTheMex

Dunewarrior #19 Posted 24 December 2011 - 05:25 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 232 battles
  • 211
  • [M-I-T] M-I-T
  • Member since:
    11-02-2011
Double post.

Made by RexTheMex

xthetenth #20 Posted 24 December 2011 - 08:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Senior Alpha Test Veteran
  • 74 battles
  • 1,250
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    12-15-2011
I'm wondering how the individual subtrees will work out. North American, Lockheed, Grumman and Vought are basically the only manufacturers to have a really good candidate for each tier as far as I can tell. Curtiss, Bell and Republic all won't have the planes to make a proper full tree. Boeing didn't really make fighters, so they won't be seen much anyway. The XF8B would be cool as could be though.