Back to the drawing board
I thought that I might go back to the drawing board on this project to see it with fresh eyes, resolve some of the inadequacies, and get an idea of what considerations might be required for balanced play. I said earlier that I was not going to go down this road, and that it really is a developer problem, but sometimes my curiosity and/or impatience gets the better of me, so here we go. The idea here is to identify the "hard" areas of the tree that are unlikely to change, identify the "soft" areas of the tree that will require creativity on the part of the developers, as well as critique some of the choices I made to work around challenges (essentially cheating).
This is what I don't like about version 4.53:
1. Kawasaki and Aichi have been compressed (down-tiered) to compensate for the difficult transition from biplane to monoplane. It is a very disruptive choice, and I cheated, so I would like to make it right.
2. Absence of "stretch" for workhorse aircraft (Ki-43, Ki-84). This isn't fair to those aircraft; they should be stretched in manner similar to A6M, Bf 109, P-51, etc. They're capable, and I erred against stretching for the sake of simplicity, so I think it should be made right.
3. Overall heavy fighter progression still needs clarification (1- vs. 2-seat, high vs. low, night fighters, recon/bomber mods, etc.). It's kind of a mess.
4. Overall jet progression still needs clarification. Should collaboration between Army/Navy be shown in the tree? Collaboration with U.S. companies post-war? Some indication or precedent from developers would be helpful here (such as treatment of French tree).
Hard pavement (horizontal agreement)
First, the "hard" areas. Below you can see color-coded equivalencies between the Navy and Army. They are derived from issued specifications (Navy vs. Army), aircraft role, historical narrative, and engine modules in-game. Chronology and designers (both primarily vertical concepts) have already been accounted for. The overall principle is that horizontal (modular) agreement is desirable and that decisions for the entire tree should be made with that in mind. This means that to avoid severe balance changes further down the road, any new line developed for Japan will have to also consider those that are not yet released. This is especially true in the case of Nakajima and Kawasaki due to their challenging transition to monoplanes (more detail on this below).
Nakajima Ki-11 = Kawasaki Ki-5
The army rejected these monoplane designs and instead fell back on the biplane design Ki-10 while monoplane designs caught up. This development lag and retro use of a biplane design is what makes the Kawasaki line complicated. How you work around this problem has implications for the rest of the line (discussed later).
Mitsubishi A5M = Mitsubishi Ki-18 = Mitsubishi Ki-33 = Nakajima Ki-27
A5M monoplane finally a success, adapted for Army specs as Ki-18 and Ki-33 but rejected to the shock of Mitsubishi; contract instead awarded to Nakajima's development of Ki-27. Same engine, conceptually similar. Meanwhile Ki-10's performance is still good for a biplane but fighting obsolescence (though not to the same extreme as Fiat CR.42 for Italy).
Mitsubishi A6M = Nakajima K-43
Same engine, same concept, kind of obvious. Both are workhorses for the Navy and Army, production stretched for the duration of the war.
Mitsubishi J2M = Nakajima Ki-44
Both made use of a bomber engine adapted to the airframe in order to serve duty as an interceptor (emphasis on speed/climb rather than outright maneuverability). Low wing area reminiscent of the Kawasaki Ki-78 concept aircraft that was inspired by Me 209. D4Y also this level because of equivalence to Ki-60's engine, also the fact that Horikoshi considered the engine early in the development of J2M. Both eclipsed by next generation.
Kawanishi N1K1-J/N1K2-J = Nakajima Ki-84 = Aichi B7A = Mitsubishi A7M
Next generation after inadequacies of A6M, Ki-43 and J2M, Ki-44 revealed through combat. Nakajima Homare engine for all with same or similar progression. A7M ordered to use Homare engine against Horikoshi's wishes, finally abandoned in favor of Mitsubishi engines; B7A planned to do the same.
Nakajima Ki-87 = Tachikawa Ki-94-II
Next iteration, prototype form at war end, designed to overcome the challenge of higher altitudes. Meanwhile Aichi goes to 2 engines (S1A), Mitsubishi goes to rocketry (J8M), and Nakajima pursues jet engines (Kikka).
So, those are the "hard" areas -- those relationships that are unlikely to be deviated from because horizontal agreement (down to the module level) is assumed to be desirable for balance purposes.
Now the "soft" areas that are made evident from the above -- those areas that hinge upon detailed investigation of sources in Japanese and possibly creative solutions:
Soft pavement 1 (biplane to monoplane)
Nakajima Ki-11 and Kawasaki Ki-5 monoplane prototypes lack engine/armament upgrades because they did not proceed to production. Logical fiction or else obscure information from Japanese sources would be required to bring them to fruition. There is also the problem of Ki-5 being used as a premium rather than for progression (as of sometime last year), but the in-game Ki-5 test/gift plane has since then vanished into obscurity -- perhaps they are aware of the complication and have moved to reinstate it for progression. If Ki-5 is not used for progression, then the most obvious workarounds are:
--- 1) as I have done, down-tiering Ki-10, Ki-28, Ki-60 and stretching Ki-61, and consequently down-tiering D4Y, M6A, B7A for horizontal agreement (a very disruptive method);
--- 2) use Ki-10-I and Ki-10-II to cover both tiers (that is what the Army did after all until Ki-27 was online). On paper there does not appear to be much in the way of upgrades for Ki-10, but in pictures there appear to be refinements to the airframe, both subtle and obvious (such as inclusion of a cockpit cover), that are not necessarily accounted for in narrative. Further investigation is needed to pursue that avenue.
If Nakajima Ki-11 is not viable as a lead-in to Ki-27 (due to lack of information), Ki-12 as a continuation of Type 91 could make sense as both were derived from Dewoitine designs. Ki-12 uses a French engine, so if logical fiction is necessary along those lines then looking sideways to Dewoitine development in France might be a fair way to estimate the modular progression.
-- [placeholder -- Nakajima K-11/12, Kawasaki Ki-5]
Kawasaki Ki-28 prototype lacks engine/armament upgrades to be competitive at tier IV because it did not proceed to production. It would be necessary for developers to identify what those engine/armament upgrades would be in order to make it work. Follow-on development of the BMW engine produced under license by Kawasaki would be necessary, possibly looking sideways to development in Germany, meaning logical fiction or else further research with Japanese sources required.
-- Ki-10 biplane to Ki-28 monoplane in pictures (source = Encyclopedia of Japanese Aircraft 1910-1945, Volume 4, Kawasaki, edited by Tadashi Nozawa and Takashi Iwata).
Aichi line in general would require great attention in order to be balanced due to lack of armament upgrades, and gap in transition to monoplane design. Nakajima D2N and Kusho D2Y monoplanes were both rejected while Aichi relied instead on just upgrading the engine of the D1A (the D1A2 is also known as the D2A). If the D2N or D2Y were utilized to avoid the over-stretching of the D3A, then it would be necessary to do some thorough research from Japanese sources to figure out how best to proceed. I took a cheap way around this (because I do not read Japanese) by simply moving everything down a tier, so that their weaker armament (tier down) is compensated by more powerful engines (tier up). I admit that it is not the most elegant solution, particularly since variables like maneuverability and durability have not been accounted for.
-- [placeholder -- D2N and D2Y]
Soft pavement 2 (heavy fighters and jets)
Kawasaki Ki-64 is obviously derived from Ki-61, but the question remains about whether or not it is considered to be a "heavy fighter." I am inclined to say no in part because it makes things more complicated. It is obviously an upgrade to the Ki-61, moreso than the Ki-100 which was produced instead due to technical challenges and the realities of war. If Ki-64 is absolutely considered to be a heavy fighter then Ki-100 (engine as used in A6M5) would have to be up-tiered and could require attention to make it competitive. There is also the matter of transition to Ki-94-II, which I still believe to be the best way to continue Kawasaki to tier VIII.
Heavy fighters in general -- whether or not to bifurcate into single-seat and two-seat, high-altitude vs. ground attack, whether or not to make use of adapted reconnaissance or bomber airframes, etc. This is a complicated mosaic like the current U.K. heavy fighter line. I can explode it with detail but until the developers make greater indications (such as whether or not 75mm is viable for anti-fighter combat), it is difficult to proceed with absolute clarity.
Tiers VIII, IX, X -- an obvious challenge, and a "very soft" area that requires much attention on the part of the developers. Should collaboration between Army and Navy on jet/rocket technology near the end of the war be indicated? It is difficult to proceed here, and difficult also to identify whether or not post-war designs for jet trainers or licensed production are permissible or desirable. More research in this area can only come from Japanese sources, perhaps unpublished post-war records directly from those companies. In the meantime, the use of Mitsubishi J8M as a premium is a mild indicator that other avenues for VIII-X will be pursued.
moving forward
-- gather finer information (from Japanese sources where possible) to clarify the transition to monoplane which is otherwise unfairly glossed over at the expense of later tiers.
-- wait for clues from Wargaming as to how they intend to proceed with heavy fighters / jets.
tl;dr
-- transition to monoplane design complicates Nakajima, Kawasaki, Aichi at tiers II and III
-- obscure sources in Japanese or logical fiction required to create balanced progression
-- still no clear indicators for treatment of Japanese heavy fighters
-- still no clear indicators for treatment of Japanese jets
Edited by J311yfish, 12 May 2015 - 02:09 AM.
4
Carl_the_Cuttlefish, on 09 February 2015 - 03:56 PM, said:
