Jump to content


[spoiler] what the Japanese tech tree could look like

Japan Mitsubishi Aichi Kawanishi Kyushu Kawasaki Nakajima Tachikawa Mansyu Rikugun

  • Please log in to reply
301 replies to this topic

Raindrops #121 Posted 20 July 2014 - 04:39 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Putting something in here I have not seen - at least, as far as I can remember.Apparently there was a N1K1 15 prototype - two versions testing various floats and using a Mitsubishi MK4D to drive contra-rotating propellers.

New to me, but not sure if that's just because I'm unobservant.


Edited by Raindrops, 20 July 2014 - 04:39 PM.

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #122 Posted 21 July 2014 - 02:01 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
That's very interesting.  Haven't seen that picture before.  The idea shows up again in the Ki-64 though, so maybe we'll see the concept in-game.  French Arsenal VB-10 too.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Carl_the_Cuttlefish #123 Posted 27 August 2014 - 03:41 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 02 April 2014 - 10:18 AM, said:

I have been thinking about how to fill the lower tiers on the IJN side leading up to the N1K1-J and the J1N1.  These are the possibilities:

 

Option 0:   Nothing

-- leave it blank because the A6M is legendary and eclipses everything else in production

 

Option 1:  Dive Bombers

-- You would be giving up the firepower/speed/maneuverability of the A5M or A6M in order to have a tail-gunner, greater payload, and dive brakes.

-- Examples:  Aichi D1AAichi D3A, Yokosuka D4Y, Aichi B7A

-- barriers to implementation:  

  • maps built with dive bombing in mind
  • ability to bind 2 separate bomb release buttons

 

Option 2:  Torpedo Bombers

-- As with dive bombers above, you would be giving up the firepower/speed/maneuverability of the A5M or A6M in order to have a tail-gunner.

-- Examples:  Mitsubishi B5M, Nakajima B5N, Nakajima B6NAichi B7A

 

Option 3:  Floatplanes

-- As with dive bombers above, you would be giving up the speed/maneuverability of the A5M or A6M in order to have a tail-gunner (and/or heavier armament for the tier)

-- floatplane lineage could contribute directly to the development of the N1K1-J

-- Examples:  Nakajima E8N, Mitsubishi F1M, Nakajima A6M2-N, Kawanishi N1K1

-- barriers to implementation:

 

Option 4:  Flying Boats

-- You would be giving up extreme speed/maneuverability in order to have a tail gunner or multiple gunners, and would be heavily armored, presumably to deliver a bomb payload in a manner similar to ground attack aircraft currently in game, taking the "sky whale" concept to a whole new level

-- Examples:  Yokosuka H5Y, Kawanishi H3KKawanishi H6KKawanishi H8K

 

Option 5:  Recon / Patrol / Observation aircraft

-- You would be giving up firepower and armor for speed.

-- recon aircraft could contribute directly to the development of the J1N1

-- Examples:  Mitsubishi C5M, Nakajima C6N, Kyushu Q1W

 

Option 6:  Other fighter prototypes/projects

-- parallel fighters developed as companies competed with each other (Ex. Ki-33)

-- canceled fighter projects

-- modified imports, etc.

 

Option 7:  Some combination of the above

-- such as the "night fighter" variations on any of the above

-- this could contribute directly to the development of the J1N1 dedicated night fighter.

 

 

I recognize that most of the aircraft here are going heavily against precedent.  My goal here is to get a good look at everything to see how it might fit in.  It is really just a sudoku exercise at this point, but there are still some reasonable (or obvious) conclusions to be derived.  For instance, a dedicated dive bomber or floatplane progression would probably not arrive before the IJA fighters because there are barriers to implementation.  Flying boats are comparable to low-altitude flying fortresses and probably wouldn't even be considered until then if ever.  Perhaps another avenue for implementing them would be through alternate battle modes that use AI, but I don't want to speculate about that.  Anyway, just to be thorough, here is an interpretation of dive bombers and floatplane progression based on information derived from Francillon and Mikesh.

 

 

Dive bombers and floatplanes included:

 

 

Oh my god J3llyfish, I want that divebomber line!!! What do you think about the Nakajima J9Y as a tier VIII on the divebomber line?

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


J311yfish #124 Posted 02 September 2014 - 12:31 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostS01836775, on 27 August 2014 - 04:41 PM, said:

Oh my god J3llyfish, I want that divebomber line!!! What do you think about the Nakajima J9Y as a tier VIII on the divebomber line?

 

A line dedicated completely to dive bombers does not make sense in the current version of the game.  The problem is the low forward armament (2x7.7mm) that continues until Aichi B7A at Tier VII (2x20mm).  If you have played the Ki-33 for example (2x7.7mm), it is already outgunned at Tier III, and relies on speed and maneuverability to make up the difference.  I could elaborate but I think you get the idea.  It is also discussed elsewhere in this thread in more detail.

 

There is a way around that, however, if you are willing to consider the dive bombers to be a reasonable transition to heavy fighters used in a ground attack role (as for the current British tech tree via Blackburn Skua).  This gives you Aichi D1A and Aichi D3A (D3A used at Pearl Harbor).


Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #125 Posted 03 September 2014 - 06:23 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Update

-- illustration modified to account for Mitsubishi J4M as premium and to better convey manufacturers of heavy fighters

-- general refinement ongoing


Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #126 Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:28 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

This is just a quick update to account for current refinement efforts.

 

 

BLUE BOX

-- The decision to use J4M as a Tier VII premium is an indicator that N1K1-J (and related development) is favored.

    -- In that case, given N1K1-J's chronology and abundant development, it would not be unreasonable to find N1K1-J at Tier VI, N1K2-J as Tier VII.

        -- if that is done then J2M would be parallel, or simply removed to be premium.  A close look at chronology should indicate the outcome.

    -- N1K1-J was actually tested with rocket boosters, so there is at least a logical relationship to J8M1 along those lines.

-- a recent Wargaming announcement confirmed plans for a Japanese rocket-powered aircraft:

    -- Mitsubishi J8M1 = Ki-200.

    -- Mitsubishi J8M2 does not have an IJA equivalent.

    -- Mitsubishi J8M3 = Ki-202.

    -- Japanese rocket-related threads here and here, details otherwise on page 5.

 

PURPLE BOX

-- the whole point of this line is to get to the remarkable Ki-83 designed by Tomio Kubo and to inform a reasonable path to the twin-engine Ki-201.

-- The chronology of this line works vertically, but there are two caveats that should be noted:

    1) Mitsubishi Ki-30 and Ki-51 are 2-3 years ahead of their horizontal contemporaries in order to maintain the SPEED theme throughout the line.

     -- Mitsubishi Ki-15 (C5M "Babs") would otherwise be a good choice to maintain chronology, speed, and role consistent with J1N1, but lacks forward armament.

    2) Mitsubishi Ki-46 development began before J1N1 and resulted in an earlier first flight date; however they were both under development at the same time.

-- The armament of this line is light in general due to the emphasis on speed necessary for reliable reconnaissance.

    -- Ki-46 did not actually acquire forward armament until Ki-46-III.  Fiction is not a crutch, it just happens to be essential here to make the line work.

 

GREEN BOX

-- Ki-43 and Ki-44 were actually developed concurrently so it would not be unreasonable to find both advanced parallel (or staggered) to one another.

-- it might be possible to fit Nakajima Ki-62/63 here as well (design by Koyama to rival Ki-61), though details and imagery are so far scarce.  The Docavia books in French may have more details.

 

RED BOX

-- At first glance it might appear that Ki-60 is too fast for the tier, but based on the expectation that Hawker Hurricane is to appear at Tier IV for United Kingdom it is not unreasonable.  The primary alternative (based on engine developments) is Yokosuka D4Y before it becomes a dive bomber, but doing that breaks the consistency of the line by deviating from the designs of Takeo Doi.  Similar case for Kawasaki Ki-32.

-- Yokosuka R2Y3 is fictional but necessary for completion.  It would use the Ne-440 engines found on J7W3.


Edited by J311yfish, 05 September 2014 - 11:20 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Carl_the_Cuttlefish #127 Posted 05 September 2014 - 05:59 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
Hmm, sounds like their sticking in a Japanese line with rocket engines "very soon". Cool!

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


J311yfish #128 Posted 06 September 2014 - 03:28 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Update 1.5 engine module tier changes:

 

engine affected implicated
Kinsei 62 from VI to VII Mitsubishi A6M5

Mitsubishi Ki-46

Nakajima Ki-116

Kawasaki Ki-96

Kawasaki Ki-100

Kawasaki Ki-102

Yokosuka D4Y3

NK9K from VI to VII Mitsubishi A7M Aichi S1A
MK9A from VII to VIII

Mitsubishi A7M

Kyushu J7W1

Kawanishi N1K5-J

Kawanishi J3K

Aichi B7A3

MK9D from VII to VIII Mitsubishi J4M  
MK9E from VIII to IX Mitsubishi A7M  
MK9F from VIII to IX Kyushu J7W1  

 

 

Could this mean a balance pass for Japanese heavy fighters and J8M rocket under construction?  Or a consequence of a balance pass elsewhere?  Time will tell.

 

 

other engine tier changes by country:

 

 


Edited by J311yfish, 06 September 2014 - 03:32 AM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #129 Posted 16 September 2014 - 02:07 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Japanese piston aircraft engines

-- production by manufacturer (map 1942)

-- production by manufacturer (table 1945)

 

 

Mitsubishi -- air-cooled radials

 

Nakajima -- air-cooled radials

 

Kawasaki and Aichi -- liquid-cooled V

 

outliers

 

 


 

Japanese jet and rocket engines (work in progress)

 

 


 

Other technological relationships here

 

 

Sources:

 


Edited by J311yfish, 10 November 2018 - 03:12 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #130 Posted 16 September 2014 - 05:30 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

This is just a quick update to account for current refinement efforts.

 

 

BLUE BOX

The announcement that Mitsubishi J4M is to return as a Tier VII premium is a strong indicator that N1K1-J and related development is favored for the transition to J8M1.  

-- Explained in detail here and here (EU forum).

-- N1K1-J's chronology (12/1942+) and engine development (Homare 11, 21, 23, more) implies that Ki-84 (04/1943+) is also to be Tier VI (Homare 11, 21, 23, more).

 

GREEN BOX

The primary question that remains is whether or not certain aircraft (Ki-43, Ki-44, Ki-84) will be split to cover two tiers based on their historical adversaries in other countries.  I am going to assume that the answer is No because it reduces complexity, but if there is to be a split based on historical value then here is a quick overview:

-- Ki-43 based on its prolonged development (4 engines, X airframes, 3 armament upgrades spanning ~5 years)

-- Ki-44 based on its performance (3 engines, X airframes, many armament configurations spanning ~4 years)

-- Ki-84 based on its competitiveness to P-51 which is split across 3 tiers (3 production engines, 2 production airframes, 2 production armament upgrades; more if late plans considered).

-- Ki-201 for fictional extension to Tier X (use of Ne-440 engine)

^ There are sub-considerations for each of those outcomes, but I'm not going to dive into that unless there are substantial indicators, so:

-- Ki-87 has been moved up to VII in order to cover the deficiencies of late Ki-84 variants.

-- Kikka is now alone at VIII.

 

RED BOX

In order to understand how these three aircraft are directly related it is necessary to understand their development history:

-- Ki-64 was Takeo Doi's planned upgrade to the Ki-61 that involved coupling two liquid-cooled 12-cylinder engines (Daimler-Benz DB.601 under license as Kawasaki Ha-40). 

-- Ki-73 (not shown) was Tomio Kubo's initiation of the same concept (coupling of two liquid-cooled 12-cylinder engines), but complications with the engine led him to develop instead a traditional twin-engine configuration, the remarkable Ki-83.

-- Yokosuka R2Y1 also coupled two liquid-cooled 12-cylinder engines (2x Daimler-Benz DB.601 under license as Aichi Atsuta) and flew as the prototype for the R2Y2 which was to be developed further as a jet attack bomber.

^ if that is not the best way to get the Ki-83 into the game based on actual, chronological, technological progress, I don't know what is.

 

Future updates:

Edwin Dyer's second book is expected to be released very soon and should have more detail on these aircraft:

-- Mitsubishi A7M

-- Nakajima Ki-84 (and its Ki-106, Ki-113, Ki-116, Ki-117 variants)

-- Mitsubishi Ki-83 (and its Ki-95, Ki-103 variants)

-- Kawasaki Ki-119 (development of Ki-100 that did not materialize)

-- Aichi S1A

-- Kyushu Q3W

 

I consider the project to be very refined at this point and do not anticipate any major revisions.  Unless there is a major shift in the game, such as the inclusion of torpedo bombers, medium or heavy bombers, dedicated night fighters, etc., then I think it is fair to say that this project is almost done.  Small variations are certainly possible, but overall effect on playability would be minimal, such as:

-- J8M from A7M instead of N1K2-J (if preference is given to the Mitsubishi label).

-- A6M2 to N1K1-J bridged by their floatplane variation, A6M2-N --> N1K1 --> N1K1-J (if preference is given to historical narrative).

-- potential for some aircraft to be split across two tiers (if allegiance given to historical narrative or overarching chronology).

 


Edited by J311yfish, 28 September 2014 - 11:37 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


J311yfish #131 Posted 24 September 2014 - 08:53 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

re: dive bombers

 

While reading about the Aichi M6A from a reputable source (Robert Mikesh) I discovered the following:

 

Development:

 

Floats:

 

Armament:

 


 

Why this matters -- implications:

 

Module overview:

 
Tree overview:

 


 

Sources:

 


Edited by J311yfish, 11 November 2014 - 03:59 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Colonel_Kraken #132 Posted 26 September 2014 - 03:13 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 71 battles
  • 249
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

Would definitely LOVE to have the Nakajima Ki line!

 

Good work, sir.


Edited by Colonel_Kraken, 26 September 2014 - 03:15 PM.


Raindrops #133 Posted 27 September 2014 - 03:00 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

New WoWS video showing ship classes - has planes on the deck of a Japanese carrier (not sure the class) at one point. Thought at first I was looking at A6Ms, but another glance makes them B7As and D4Y1s.

Will this effect WoWP any? Probably not, but somebody is still modelling Japanese planes at least.


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #134 Posted 28 September 2014 - 06:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

This is just a quick update to account for current refinement efforts and the broader implications of Aichi M6A for dive bombers and floatplanes:

 

 

Dive bombers:

^ Aichi M6A makes it possible to have a line of dedicated carrier-based attack aircraft (dive bombers) as shown above and further implicates floatplanes.

 

 

Floatplanes:

If dive bombers are included (as above) then there are 2 aircraft developed directly from floatplanes and 1 aircraft with floatplane lineage:

-- Aichi D3A -----------> Yokosuka D4Y ---> Aichi M6A (liquid-cooled engine and related concepts)

-- Aichi E13A ---------> Aichi E16A ---------> Aichi M6A (float and folding wing concepts)

-- Kawanishi E15K --> Kawanishi N1K1 --> Kawanishi N1K1-J

-- Kyushu began as Watanabe Iron Works on the island of Kyushu, and their first products were seaplanes (E9W1) and seaplane trainers (K4Y1, K6W1, K8W1).  They were contracted to build A5M in 1938, E14Y1 in 1939, and in October 1943 became known as Kyushu before developing the unconventional J7W.  

 

If you add all of that up with consideration for Japanese rocket-powered aircraft (announced as coming soon, produced by Mitsubishi) then the far-reaching implications are:

 

 

Dive bombers and floatplanes:

 

I don't know if that is a direction that Wargaming intends to go (developments explained by floatplanes -- PURPLE BOX), but if they do, then I think that in order for floatplanes to be viable they would have to have some kind of tactical advantage, such as the use of their floats for rapid deceleration over water ("touch-and-go"), which would in turn require adjustment to the terrain collision mechanics.  Visibility and concealment at low altitudes might also be relevant.  This is speculation, but given that Japanese use of floatplanes eclipses all other nations, and informs some significant developments, I think that the strongest case for floatplanes can only be made by Japan.

 

I think it would be smart to unlock J7W before the Japanese rockets are released because it could mean inclusion of N1K1-J and a change in the layout.

 

Until there is a solid indication one way or the other I'm just going to leave everything as is, stopping at dive bombers.

 

Night fighters may get their own evaluation soon, but due to the chaotic nature of their implementation (single engine, twin engine, various manufacturers, one-off recon/bomber adaptations, schrage-musik configurations, etc.) I don't think that they are likely to get their own completely dedicated line.  If they are introduced then I think that certain aircraft known to have been used in night fighter roles (many) will then be allowed to configure themselves accordingly (access to modules, etc.), but I speculate.  Implications then are modified targeting mechanics (to account for angled weaponry), possible changes to radar mechanics, fog of war, etc.

 

See related roadmap thread for these kinds of considerations and how they might fit into the grand scheme of things.


Edited by J311yfish, 02 October 2014 - 05:51 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


lostwingman #135 Posted 30 September 2014 - 01:29 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 15 battles
  • 701
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

WG has been very against integrating WoWS, WoT, and WoWP into the same matches (as in taking WoWP planes into tank and ship matches). The best we have to look forward to is whenever it is WG finally makes clans across the three games and does the integrated clan wars they've been promising.

 

Also please note that the three games are developed in individual game studios in three different countries. It would be very hard to do collaboration that way.


Edited by lostwingman, 30 September 2014 - 02:32 PM.

Ground Attack, the new Arty




Carl_the_Cuttlefish #136 Posted 30 September 2014 - 03:03 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 20 battles
  • 1,416
  • Member since:
    11-06-2012
Huh, interesting. So I should keep my A7M. I had no idea that THAT's what the rocket planes were. And I don't really see why they wouldn't add the floatplanes. They weren't barges like the Catalina or something. And the Rex was a widely produced plane. The question is if they would make them any different than fighters?

"It's about to get real inky in here!!!"

- Carl the Cuttlefish, the artist formerly known as S01836775, now in an all new user friendly format.

I hope it doesn't sound like I'm whining in my posts 

And why do we balance???


Raindrops #137 Posted 01 October 2014 - 07:00 AM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012

Personally, I'd think it more likely the J8M will get thrown on top of something else than the J7W getting re-aligned - when in doubt, bet on the lazy way out. Regardless of the how, the teasing has been done, and now we just have to wait for the implementation.

Other than that, I do want to reiterate LW's note above - not only would it be a strategic hassle, but a balancing nightmare to combine the games. (Balance the planes against eachother AND targets, and vice-vis.) Plus, it has been said in the past that was not in WG's plans. Personally, I agree with their choice - they could pick up a "World of War" later on, but let WoT, WoWP, and WoWS play in their own little playpens as well. (I'd put the same note on your roadmap post, but then I'd be redundant.)


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #138 Posted 02 October 2014 - 01:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 2670 battles
  • 1,372
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View Postlostwingman, on 30 September 2014 - 02:29 PM, said:

WG has been very against integrating WoWS, WoT, and WoWP into the same matches (as in taking WoWP planes into tank and ship matches). The best we have to look forward to is whenever it is WG finally makes clans across the three games and does the integrated clan wars they've been promising.

 

Also please note that the three games are developed in individual game studios in three different countries. It would be very hard to do collaboration that way.

 

View PostRaindrops, on 01 October 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

Other than that, I do want to reiterate LW's note above - not only would it be a strategic hassle, but a balancing nightmare to combine the games. (Balance the planes against eachother AND targets, and vice-vis.) Plus, it has been said in the past that was not in WG's plans. Personally, I agree with their choice - they could pick up a "World of War" later on, but let WoT, WoWP, and WoWS play in their own little playpens as well. (I'd put the same note on your roadmap post, but then I'd be redundant.)

 

I do not doubt that it would be extraordinarily complex to accomplish something like "World of War" and I do not mean to suggest that development of each (WoT, WoWP, WoWS) should be subjugated to an over-arching vision at the expense of what might make them individually unique, fun, and profitable; yet I think the notion of "integration" is still valuable (as a concept) because it provides some kind of framework to understand development decisions.  If you were tasked with identifying (from scratch) the distinct layers of the atmosphere, for example, it would be helpful to know where outer space begins because it establishes an outer limit and implies gradation from the ground.  That is exactly what I have tried to do with the roadmap thread -- establish an endpoint ("space") with major gradations based on game mechanics ("layers of the atmosphere") necessary for each type of aircraft (fighter-bombers, night fighters, floatplanes, etc.).

 

So, "integration" is valuable alone as a concept, but it does not necessarily end there.  Assuming that each game is successful to a degree that allows steady progression, consider that 5+ years from now there will be major assets in place (many man-hours of coding, research, models, skins, etc.), and that the concept of integration might then be revisited even though it may not be on the radar right now  (Examples: Microsoft Word assets carried forward to Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop assets carried forward to Creative Suite).  I would be surprised if the assets are abandoned or rebuilt completely from scratch for the next incarnation.  I could say more on this but I'll stop.

 

I would also expect some degree of collaboration between the studios to be necessary in order to reduce costs.  For example, the video above shows an aircraft carrier with Japanese aircraft on the deck.  It is true that each studio can research, model, and skin them independently, but if they were to instead share/adapt/modify as needed ("collaborate") then a reduction in development cost/time can be realized (up to 50%).  That's kind of compelling (why pay for the same aircraft twice?).


Edited by J311yfish, 02 October 2014 - 01:01 PM.

Main tech tree projects:   JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  •  UNITED STATES    GERMANY  •  USSR  // aircraft to China

Europe tech tree projects:  ITALY    FRANCE    SWEDEN    Finland (skins•  Poland  •  International  //  Retired projects:  China    Brazil

Historical scenarios:  Spanish Civil War (skins•  Invasion of Poland  •  Winter War  •  Continuation War

Map proposals:   Panama Canal    Great Wall of China    Cliffs of Dover   //  Clan:  343 Kokutai  //  Tutorial:  How to ignore forum posts and signatures


Warmongrol #139 Posted 02 October 2014 - 01:42 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 30
  • Member since:
    06-11-2014
The list is looking good! :great:

It's only a matter of time! And yours is coming!


lostwingman #140 Posted 03 October 2014 - 02:45 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 15 battles
  • 701
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 02 October 2014 - 08:00 AM, said:

 

 

I do not doubt that it would be extraordinarily complex to accomplish something like "World of War" and I do not mean to suggest that development of each (WoT, WoWP, WoWS) should be subjugated to an over-arching vision at the expense of what might make them individually unique, fun, and profitable; yet I think the notion of "integration" is still valuable (as a concept) because it provides some kind of framework to understand development decisions.  If you were tasked with identifying (from scratch) the distinct layers of the atmosphere, for example, it would be helpful to know where outer space begins because it establishes an outer limit and implies gradation from the ground.  That is exactly what I have tried to do with the roadmap thread -- establish an endpoint ("space") with major gradations based on game mechanics ("layers of the atmosphere") necessary for each type of aircraft (fighter-bombers, night fighters, floatplanes, etc.).

 

So, "integration" is valuable alone as a concept, but it does not necessarily end there.  Assuming that each game is successful to a degree that allows steady progression, consider that 5+ years from now there will be major assets in place (many man-hours of coding, research, models, skins, etc.), and that the concept of integration might then be revisited even though it may not be on the radar right now  (Examples: Microsoft Word assets carried forward to Microsoft Office, Adobe Photoshop assets carried forward to Creative Suite).  I would be surprised if the assets are abandoned or rebuilt completely from scratch for the next incarnation.  I could say more on this but I'll stop.

 

I would also expect some degree of collaboration between the studios to be necessary in order to reduce costs.  For example, the video above shows an aircraft carrier with Japanese aircraft on the deck.  It is true that each studio can research, model, and skin them independently, but if they were to instead share/adapt/modify as needed ("collaborate") then a reduction in development cost/time can be realized (up to 50%).  That's kind of compelling (why pay for the same aircraft twice?).

 

There's quite a bit of difference between sharing model assets and programmed tools with the monumental task of balancing this whole thing. Balance and the testing passes it takes require a lot of time on the devs part (and even the lengthy systems they use have come under fire as being too simplistic). Balance is also a big reason why the devs say they wouldn't do something like WT that integrates these game types (Air, Ground, Sea), that's what SerB himself has said repeatedly. I just see it as going well beyond speculation to think of that as an end goal.

Ground Attack, the new Arty








Also tagged with Japan, Mitsubishi, Aichi, Kawanishi, Kyushu, Kawasaki, Nakajima, Tachikawa, Mansyu, Rikugun

6 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 6 guests, 0 anonymous users