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
294 replies to this topic

J311yfish #141 Posted 03 October 2014 - 03:18 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
It is like a point on the horizon that helps you to establish your direction.  It is not necessary to reach it in order for it to be useful.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


lostwingman #142 Posted 03 October 2014 - 03:47 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Alpha tester
  • 2 battles
  • 701
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012
But if it isn't on the horizon (and we've been given every idea to think it's not) then assuming that is the direction we should look is flawed.

Ground Attack, the new Arty




J311yfish #143 Posted 03 October 2014 - 06:21 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

I don't know if you realize it but you are debating against a point that I did not make.  The "challenge of balance among all 3 games" is beyond the scope of any project that I have considered.  In formal debate it would be called a "red herring" or "straw man."  Given your level of interest in this project from the start I will endeavor to be more clear.

 

What I am trying to do -- in the absence of an official roadmap -- is develop a context for understanding development decisions for aircraft that might be included should they find it fit to do so, and I am leveraging my knowledge of Japanese aircraft to do it.  This isn't anything new.  I did it with Japanese rockets before they were announced as coming soon (see this post in particular or others like it made by me on EU forum).  I think anyone can do it if they are crazy enough to look at all the evidence and challenge even their most basic assumptions.  I happen to like puzzles, and Japanese aircraft, and this game, so here I am.

 

The questions that I have asked and answered (or tried to) are:

 1) If rockets are to be a playable class, what changes to balance or mechanics might precede their arrival?

 2) If floatplanes are to be a playable class, what changes to balance or mechanics might precede their arrival?

 3) If night fighters are to be a playable class, what changes to balance or mechanics might precede their arrival?

 

I have not ventured to explore bombers or reconnaissance aircraft and probably won't.  In fact you should be concerned for my health if I do.

 

I am not making a case for integration.  My mention of it is simply an acknowledgement that:

1) the assets are valuable and can potentially be used over and over (not just per update, but per studio and per game)

2) integration was not necessarily a driving force for Microsoft Word, or Adobe Photoshop, early in their development cycles either but became a priority later on (argument by analogy).

 

I think it would be fair to say that if assets are being built upon assets, that the general direction of development is "up."  What distant point would you use to characterize that direction, if not "integration"?  That is what I want to convey.  If you have read this far, thanks.


Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


lostwingman #144 Posted 06 October 2014 - 06:18 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

View PostJ311yfish, on 03 October 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

I don't know if you realize it but you are debating against a point that I did not make.

 

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.  

 

View PostJ311yfish, on 27 September 2014 - 02:41 PM, said:

 

Stage 6 -- "the great beyond"

 

 

 

You are specifically using that idea to guide speculation. So yes, it is a point you have made repeatedly and it is something that WG has repeatedly said they don't want to do. My point is simply that focusing so much on speculating on that development path is misguided. That's it. You're dragging way too much out of way too little all because I pointed out that SerB has specifically and repeatedly knocked this idea down.

 

View PostJ311yfish, on 03 October 2014 - 01:21 PM, said:

What I am trying to do -- in the absence of an official roadmap -- is develop a context for understanding development decisions for aircraft that might be included should they find it fit to do so, and I am leveraging my knowledge of Japanese aircraft to do it.

Which in other words means you are blatantly grasping at straws. All I'm saying is that you are trying to guess way too far ahead with way too little information. You are trying to guess the 2030 superbowl winner based on your knowledge of the NCAA SEC.


Edited by lostwingman, 06 October 2014 - 06:20 PM.

Ground Attack, the new Arty




Raindrops #145 Posted 06 October 2014 - 06:28 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
Allow me to butt in at this point and suggest that if this conversation needs to continue, could we please do so in the "roadmap" thread instead of the Japanese tree thread?

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #146 Posted 09 October 2014 - 04:04 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013
The prospect of night fighters as a playable line -- see here (EU forum).

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


Raindrops #147 Posted 14 October 2014 - 02:45 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

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

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

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.

I may already be eating my words - J7s are now Multirole, with the A5M to A7M shifted to the side as fighters. Question is, would WG consider the other Kawanishi planes to be the best Multirole fighters to put under them?


I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #148 Posted 14 October 2014 - 05:08 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostRaindrops, on 14 October 2014 - 03:45 PM, said:

I may already be eating my words - J7s are now Multirole, with the A5M to A7M shifted to the side as fighters. Question is, would WG consider the other Kawanishi planes to be the best Multirole fighters to put under them?

 

That's a good question.  It might depend in part on whether the Aichi dive bombers are considered to be "multi role" or not.  There is narrative to suggest that they could perform as maneuverable fighters in a pinch.  If that happens, this makes sense to me:

 

 

^ that would give you two full and diverse lines for Japan, and the Navy would be essentially done.

 

Other single-engine aircraft equipped with bombs that might be implicated, if not Zeros:

 


Edited by J311yfish, 14 October 2014 - 06:44 PM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


Raindrops #149 Posted 14 October 2014 - 05:52 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 92 battles
  • 782
  • [EDF] EDF
  • Member since:
    02-05-2012
I think they would consider DBs multi-role if anything - they do have the ordinance for it, if not the cannons. It also would mesh well with the current switch of the J7W to its "new" line. If we assume that current priorities would be to "shore up" the newly-shifted lines, do you think it would be safe to assume the J8M is next, then the multi-roles, and after that we'll have a chance to see IJA/HFs later on?

I never said I was good.

USA needs GA too.


J311yfish #150 Posted 15 October 2014 - 02:06 AM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

 

Update 1.6 and changes for the Japanese (source):

-- Multirole fighter designation for -- Type 91, J7W1, J7W2, J7W3

-- Multirole fighter premium -- Mitsubishi J4M1

-- balance changes consistent with the above

-- for a good overall summary see this informative graphic

 

Balance changes -- general:

 

Balance changes -- detail:

 

Implications for projected tree:


Edited by J311yfish, 17 October 2014 - 03:50 AM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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 #151 Posted 18 October 2014 - 02:50 PM

    Second Lieutenant

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

I thought I should probably post this here to for records sake and because it's probably more useful here.

 

The J7M's are really good at GA now! They are probably one of the most effective multirole at GT removal. They have decent HP's, good bombs, great cannon firepower... They can still join the fight, but I find if I play GA for a little while, I can drag planes down to my altitude, where I can fight them. And they vaporize IL's. Following the pack at the beginning of the game just leads to J7W's going way above their comfortable altitude and stalling all the time. These changes definately made the J7W's more unique from the Yaks, and gave them a definitive role. They actually are clan wars material now, because they can serve as IL killers and IL substitutes, taking out GT's. And they don't require an escort like IL's do (if the CW people decide to do something besides climb to 17777 feet every game).


"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???


Carl_the_Cuttlefish #152 Posted 18 October 2014 - 03:06 PM

    Second Lieutenant

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

View PostJ311yfish, on 14 October 2014 - 11:08 AM, said:

 

That's a good question.  It might depend in part on whether the Aichi dive bombers are considered to be "multi role" or not.  There is narrative to suggest that they could perform as maneuverable fighters in a pinch.  If that happens, this makes sense to me:

 

 

^ that would give you two full and diverse lines for Japan, and the Navy would be essentially done.

 

Other single-engine aircraft equipped with bombs that might be implicated, if not Zeros:

 

 

This would be the best move to me, to add the Aichi's and like them to the J7W's. Players could actually get divebombers now and we wouldn't have to worry about tier X problems. The only thing is divebombers are ordinance based whereas the J7W's are primarily cannon based for GT distruction. But the way they are played is similar, start on GT's and then try to chew up planes that come down to you. 

"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 #153 Posted 18 October 2014 - 07:02 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

 

Multirole fighter comparison

-- if Aichi and Kawanishi are considered to be multirole fighters, how might they compare to those in game?

-- Ilyushin included for baseline

-- work in progress

 

Tier II

 

Tier III

 

Tier IV

 

Tier V

 

Tier VI

 

Tier VII

 

 


Edited by J311yfish, 25 October 2014 - 03:31 PM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


J311yfish #154 Posted 23 October 2014 - 01:00 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Refinement update:

 

PURPLE BOX -- Multirole fighter implications simplified

-- the strongest candidates for the new Multirole designation are the Aichi dive bombers and the Kawanishi fighter-bombers.

-- Aichi B7A and Kawanishi N1K1-J have parallel engine development yet different approaches to multirole combat (two-seat vs. single seat).

 

MAROON BOX -- Heavy fighter implications simplified

-- the pre-Ki-45 single-engine two-seat co-op aircraft have been removed from tiers II and III (though still accounted for as alternates).  They lack module progression, firepower, and don't really add anything exceptional if Aichi is to be multirole.  If they were to be included for the sake of saturation then I think the best candidates would be Nakajima Ki-4 and Kawasaki Ki-32.  Progression from D3A to Ki-45 follows the precedent established by United Kingdom's Blackburn Skua --> Bristol Blenheim (two-seat relationship).

-- Ki-45 is linked from Ki-28 only because the Kawasaki Ki-38 (the first twin-engine heavy fighter concept) failed to materialize; it was to use the same engine but the specification was revised after Ki-27 won the Army fighter contract.

-- Ki-83 has been moved up to tier VII to better reflect its chronology (11/1944) relative to other heavy fighters (Ki-102, Aichi S1A, Ki-93).  It is comparable to the De Havilland Hornet and Grumman F7F Tigercat at the same tier.

-- Aichi S1A is a descendant of Aichi B7A designs and continues the two-seat heavy fighter concept from Ki-102 (earlier) to Ki-93 (heavier).

-- Ki-201 now complies with heavy fighter role (Me 262 analogue).  Kikka remains a light fighter despite having two engines because of its relatively low armament (1x30mm or 2x30mm).

-- R2Y2 moved down; the only engines of record are the Ne-330's which happen to be designated Tier X according to J7W2.  Moving R2Y2 down makes space for Ki-201 and prevents having to create an abundance of fictional modules for progression.  It also simplifies the layout considerably and still gives Japan a Fighter, Multirole, and Heavy for tiers IX and X.

 

THEMES

Mitsubishi -- maneuverability until loss of carriers and quest for higher altitude leads to rocket development (J8M).

Aichi -- maneuverable carrier-based dive bombers until loss of carriers leads to land-based fighter-bombers (Kawanishi) and interceptors (Kyushu).

Nakajima -- maneuverability until quest for higher altitude leads to jet development (Kikka, Ki-201).

Kawasaki -- maneuverability until loss of Army contract leads to greater embrace of German engines.  Kawasaki's performance may resemble Germany's Bf 109 series.

Heavy Fighters -- Kawasaki Ki-45 emphasizes maneuverability, petrol tank protection, and many armament configurations; Ki-102 continues with adaptations for assault and performance at altitude; Aichi S1A and Ki-93 continue the trend with larger engines while retaining tail gunner; Ki-83 instead ditches the tail gunner (like Hornet) for streamlined performance at altitude; Ki-201 and R2Y2 are both twin-engine jet developments with cannon armament.

Overall -- maneuverability is an overall theme (very few exceptions).  Ki-11 is an oddity for two reasons: 1) thematic deviation; 2) placement of Breda Ba.27M at Tier III for China (premium).  If it doesn't fit then Nakajima Ki-27 could proceed from Nakajima A4N instead to keep the maneuverability theme consistent; it may also help to work around what might otherwise be reliance on fictional modules for progression.


Edited by J311yfish, 30 October 2014 - 02:35 PM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


J311yfish #155 Posted 30 October 2014 - 07:46 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

Refinement update

 

Multirole

Multirole implications have been accounted for and represented graphically as single-seat (Kawanishi) and two-seat (Aichi).

It might be possible to represent the heavy fighters in a similar manner but it complicates the layout and invites many prototypes (thin on progression with strained relationships), so they are sidelined until WG indicates their plan.  It is an interesting idea because it would be one way to get the unusual Ki-94-I or Ki-98 (both J4M analogues) into game for progression (Tier VIII).

 

Modules

Matched historical armament to modules currently in the game in order to assign exact tiers and resolve potential parallels and/or stretches (Nakajima):

  • Purple indicates an exact match
  • Crimson indicates a reasonable approximation

Added links to the World of Warplanes Encyclopedia for existing aircraft modules.

 

Alternates

Added early aircraft known to have used French engines or designs as potential premiums.  It might be appropriate or relevant when the French tech tree arrives (possible event?):

  • Mitsubishi A5M3a -- faster than any A5M variant and armed with 20mm motor cannon
  • Nakajima Ki-12 -- the first retractable undercarriage in Japan also armed with 20mm motor cannon

Added other potential premium aircraft in order to be accountable:

  • Kawasaki Type 92 -- counterpart to Nakajima Type 91; faster with better climb rate
  • Nakajima D3N1​ -- competed against Aichi D3A and lost (discontinued)
  • Kawasaki Ki-66​ -- twin-engine dive bomber (discontinued)
  • Kawasaki Ki-96​ -- twin-engine single-seat fighter (discontinued)
  • Kyushu Q1W​ -- twin-engine two-seat patrol aircraft (anachronistic)

Alternates for tiers II-VII have been moved to post #99 and #100 of this thread in order to make room for primary aircraft details.

 


Edited by J311yfish, 31 October 2014 - 01:57 AM.

Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


Bandet #156 Posted 30 October 2014 - 11:22 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,225
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012
I can't wait until they add japanese heavyies. It'll be the most logically useless thing, a tnb heavy fighter! huehuehue

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.


J311yfish #157 Posted 01 November 2014 - 05:29 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Member
  • 841 battles
  • 1,189
  • [343] 343
  • Member since:
    12-13-2013

View PostBandet, on 31 October 2014 - 12:22 AM, said:

I can't wait until they add japanese heavyies. It'll be the most logically useless thing, a tnb heavy fighter! huehuehue

 

There is no evidence to suggest that they were ever used in the manner that you describe.  The twin-engine concept for the Japanese began as a way to achieve greater range.  Later they were used as bomber interceptors, night fighters, and ground attack.

 

The standout twin-engine fighter is the Ki-83.  The Me 262 analogues (Kikka, Ki-201) could be remarkable but much depends upon how they are implemented because their historical jet engine data has been exaggerated for J7W.


Tech tree projects:  JAPAN    UNITED KINGDOM  //  ITALY    FRANCE  //  SWEDEN    Finland (skins)    Poland    China    Brazil    UNITED STATES   GERMANY

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


Bandet #158 Posted 01 November 2014 - 05:34 PM

    Captain

  • Closed Beta Tester
  • 0 battles
  • 3,225
  • [DRACS] DRACS
  • Member since:
    03-25-2012

View PostJ311yfish, on 01 November 2014 - 12:29 PM, said:

 

There is no evidence to suggest that they were ever used in the manner that you describe.  The twin-engine concept for the Japanese began as a way to achieve greater range.  Later they were used as bomber interceptors, night fighters, and ground attack.

 

The standout twin-engine fighter is the Ki-83.  The Me 262 analogues (Kikka, Ki-201) could be remarkable but much depends upon how they are implemented because their historical jet engine data has been exaggerated for J7W.

 

You didn't understand the joke.

To be yourself in a world that is constantly trying to make you something else is the greatest accomplishment.


Lern_hao_Tew_Spel #159 Posted 01 November 2014 - 10:57 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

View PostBandet, on 01 November 2014 - 06:34 PM, said:

 

You didn't understand the joke.

 

Same as you.



Lern_hao_Tew_Spel #160 Posted 01 November 2014 - 11:07 PM

    Airman Basic

  • Member
  • 0 battles
  • 2
  • Member since:
    03-16-2014

Guess what? the old youtube formation is back!

Link here:https://www.youtube....h?v=wyguBEc2dw4







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

2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users