Historical accuracy of Japanese carrier aircrafts.

[_Sky_]

So this is a problem I have with HOI4. When I saw aircraft tech tree and heard we will have to use tweaked army fighter planes like Ki-27 for our carriers instead of legendary aircrafts like A6M2 zero I was shocked.

I could understand if this was done for Germans who did not have any CV planes ,but for Japan it simply does not make sense to do this, especially when you take in consideration existence of A6M2 and its latter variants A6M3 and A6M5.

To save historical accuracy there needs to be another tree line added in aviation especially for CV planes, otherwise this game is losing too large part of its historical accuracy and limmiting enjoyable WW2 experience to any player who is immersed in pacific theater.


But this is my view of current situation so I would like to see what rest of community thinks about this specific situation, but I for one can't enjoy attacking Peril Harbor on New Years eve instead on 7th december hoping to get USA carriers while having Ki-27's or Ki-43's leading attack.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Naval verisons of fighters are different planes. The name alters and the model aswell. Infact, when they hovered over the Ki-27's naval fighter icon, it read A5M2. Besides that in the later World War Wednesday Multiplayer stream you actually saw an Zero flying over Holstein because the japanese ai sent some of its planes over.

 

[_Sky_]

Naval verisons of fighters are different planes. The name alters and the model aswell. Infact, when they hovered over the Ki-27's naval fighter icon, it read A5M2. Besides that in the later World War Wednesday Multiplayer stream you actually saw an Zero flying over Holstein because the japanese ai sent some of its planes over.

Thanks for the answer, I have not seen that,, THANKS !!! I was afraid they have dumb down aircraft tech tree. If what you say is true I will be able to enjoy my game as I always wanted.

 

[LordOfWar16]

Thanks for the answer, I have not seen that,, THANKS !!! I was afraid they have dumb down aircraft tech tree. If what you say is true I will be able to enjoy my game as I always wanted.

variants of tanks are differently named and modeled aswell, i.e "Marder", "Hummel", "Stug" etc. I found the particular part in the episode i was reffering to in my last post and include some screenshot below.

 

[Admiral Piett]

The only thing that bothers me about the Japanese aircraft tech tree is "A6M2-N." I won't stop harping on it until it is changed to "B6N." Even the drawing they have is a B6N. Please change it Paradox, for the sake of my sanity.

 

[_Sky_]

I had a plan of only building naval fighters (to save on my production) an thus produce much larger amount than I could do otherwise. I would use them for air superiority and would have a large pool of reserves for my carriers if they end up being depleted after a fight. I also planned not to use torpedo bombers on my carriers cuz they seem far to easy to kill.

 

[LordOfWar16]

I had a plan of only building naval fighters (to save on my production) an thus produce much larger amount than I could do otherwise. I would use them for air superiority and would have a large pool of reserves for my carriers if they end up being depleted after a fight. I also planned not to use torpedo bombers on my carriers cuz they seem far to easy to kill.

Just keep in mind that naval fighters are slightly worse in most stats. Will be an great alternative for countires that relie heaviely on naval airforces anyway like japan of course and it is not like that china has much to counter.

 

[Number 7]

just make sure you build some of the amazing ki-84 hayate once you unlock it, now that's a non naval fighter thats worth building, very great design. between that and the infamous Zero i have plenty of japanese fighters to fanboy over

 

[fredgiblet]

I had a plan of only building naval fighters (to save on my production) an thus produce much larger amount than I could do otherwise. I would use them for air superiority and would have a large pool of reserves for my carriers if they end up being depleted after a fight. I also planned not to use torpedo bombers on my carriers cuz they seem far to easy to kill.

Naval fighters should be notably, though not significantly, worse than their land-based counterparts due to the number of design concessions that need to happen to get them onto a carrier. They should also be somewhat more expensive due to those same concessions.

 

[_Sky_]

Naval fighters should be notably, though not significantly, worse than their land-based counterparts due to the number of design concessions that need to happen to get them onto a carrier. They should also be somewhat more expensive due to those same concessions.

Of course,,, but there is advantage of me having to only spend my air experience on upgrading them rather than having to upgrade both land and naval fighters what will in turn enable me to desing much better plane than I could do otherwise.

 

[fredgiblet]

I would be mildly surprised if it was balanced that way. But oversights are certainly possible.

 

[Grallak]

Can I see the full Tree please?

 

[LordOfWar16]

Can I see the full Tree please?

here you go.

 

[Denkt]

Maybe they could come up with some names for jet bombers, we expect more for a major country

 

[Grallak]

ty