Japan's Air Force Tree

[Theodorian]

Here we go!

So here is a picture. It's from Week 4 of Daniel's Japan Let's Play. I stopped it at a particular moment so you can see what has me fuming.

You can see he's looking at the B5N, which is the1936 Naval Bomber. Here's a B5N:

It's one of the more successful Japanese designs. The "carrier" tab he has his mouse on however, indicates the B5N will be upgraded to the G3M1 Model 11.

Let's take a look at that one.

Hmm. I'm not certain this adds up. The G3M is actually already present in the tree under "Tactical Bombers" (visible in the picture).

Anyone want to comment?

Similarly, the A6M2-N is not the plane that is shown there. As the A6M2-N is a Zero with the floats attached.

And the A6M2 Zero is absent all together except in name. I believe it is the carrier version of the Ki-43, but none of these "variants" have their own art?

Let's discuss this. I'd like some info from Daniel or Podcat if possible.

 

[Number 7]

you can tag podcat with an @, i do agree the planes should be historical!

 

[PlacidDragon]

hmm, i must admit i never noticed that.

And that...well.. yes.. that is quite stupid, hehe.

The G3 family, forerunner to the famous G4 family were twin engined tactical bombers, which of course has absolutely NOTHING to do on an aircraft carrier. They were also used as torpedo bombers if required (sinking of the Prince of Wales and the Repulse off Singapore was really the western introduction to what those aircraft were capable of).

Its somewhat difficult for Paradox i guess, since they both have a (land based) naval bomber, and tactical bombers, both of which the G family was the main aircraft type for. While the Kate was on occasion used as a land based bomber, its primary use was as a carrier aircraft, so having that as land based makes very little sense.

It would have made FAR more sense to basically just insert a "generic" army aircraft as the 1936 naval bomber (like the Ki-30 or Ki-32 for example), which upgraded to a Kate carrier variant.

Cannot really commend on the Zero's without more information (other than that the usage of the "Rufe" design, which is a float plane, is just... wrong)

 

[Elouda]

One solution might be to make the following changes;

Tactical Bombers;
1933 - Ki-1 (new, replaces G3M)
1936 - Ki-21 (like now)
1940 - Ki-49 (moved from Heavy Bombers, replaced there by G5N)
1944 - Ki-67 (new, replaces P1Y)

Naval Bombers;
1936 - G3M (moved from Tactical Bombers)
1940 - G4M (moved from Tactical Bombers)
1944 - P1Y (moved from Tactical Bombers)

Carrier Naval Bombers;
1936 - B4Y (new, replaces B5N)
1940 - B5N (moved from 1936)
1944 - B7A or B6N (either as now, or new)

This way the Tactical Bomber line is a logical progression of Army medium bombers, the Naval Bomber line consists of the torpedo capable Navy medium bombers, and the Carrier Naval Bomber line becomes actual carrier based aircraft, and the A6M2-N is gone. It also moves the Ki-49 into a sensible place as the sucessor to the Ki-21, instead of trying to shoehorn it into the Heavy Bomber line...

 

[Harada.Taro]

no strategic bomber ?

Änyways it's trua that many little pics are not in par with the real aircraft.

 

[Elouda]

no strategic bomber ? So the allies will never be able to win the war....

The Heavy Bomber line isn't shown in the OP's screenshot due to how its cut off, it should be to the right of the Tactical Bomber line. For Japan at the moment it goes Ki-20 (1936), Ki-49 (1940), G8N (1944).

Edit - More complete screenshot, showing the HB line too.

 

[Cpack]

I think in most countries, the Torpedo bomber and the naval (carrier) Torpedo Bombers should be still the same model.
There're still no only land based single engine Torpedo Bombers

like this:

D4Y Suisei is carrier based naval dive bomber, I couldn't find an adequat land based variant, so the same

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I think in most countries, the Torpedo bomber and the naval (carrier) Torpedo Bombers should be still the same model.
There're still no only land based single engine Torpedo Bombers

like this:
View attachment 169938

D4Y Suisei is carrier based naval dive bomber, I couldn't find an adequat land based variant, so the same

There's the scout/attacker Ki-71, 3 prototypes were built in 1941, but was discontinued due to cost and lack of applications.

 

[potski]

The "carrier" tab he has his mouse on however, indicates the B5N will be upgraded to the G3M1 Model 11.

No, it doesn't. The 1936 land-based naval bomber is the B5N, the 1936 carrier-capable NAV is the G3M1. The tooltip tells you that the G3M1 is researched, and that this then enables future research of the G3M1 Model 11, ie. that the Model 11 is the 1940 carrier-capable NAV. So the G3M1 Model 11 is an upgrade of the G3M1, not the B5N. The upgrade of the B5N as the land-based NAV is the A6M2-N.

I'm not saying these are the "right" planes for each slot. Just that the tooltip doesn't suggest that a single engined plane upgrades to a twin engined one.

I'm not certain this adds up. The G3M is actually already present in the tree under "Tactical Bombers" (visible in the picture).

The G3M Rikko is the TAC. The G3M1 and G3M1 Model 11 appear to be the torpedo bomber variants IRL, and therefore appear in the tree as if they were a separate model. But as far as I can tell these were actually the same basic design.

I'm sure the devs explained that several compromises had to be made with planes and tanks, where there wasn't clearly an historic model/variant that exactly fitted the tree.

 

[Theodorian]

I would tag Podcat but I'm uncertain on how to, because I'd like some kind of clarification. Another question I have for him would be:

When we upgrade a plane, say from the Ki-43 to the A6M2 Zero, does the portrait not change? This is a huge piece of immersion breaking.

@podcat.

 

[Elouda]

I would tag Podcat but I'm uncertain on how to, because I'd like some kind of clarification. Another question I have for him would be:

When we upgrade a plane, say from the Ki-43 to the A6M2 Zero, does the portrait not change? This is a huge piece of immersion breaking.

@podcat.

Going by this, taken from the WWW Japan #4, it seems that the portraits for regular and non-carrier variants are the same (the only addition seems to be the 'CV' icon);

Would be nice to know if these will be moddable to have different icons (though to be fair, I don't mind the icons that much personally, but I would like reasonable model names).

 

[Swinds]

Here we go!

So here is a picture. It's from Week 4 of Daniel's Japan Let's Play. I stopped it at a particular moment so you can see what has me fuming.

You can see he's looking at the B5N, which is the1936 Naval Bomber. Here's a B5N:

It's one of the more successful Japanese designs. The "carrier" tab he has his mouse on however, indicates the B5N will be upgraded to the G3M1 Model 11.

Let's take a look at that one.

Hmm. I'm not certain this adds up. The G3M is actually already present in the tree under "Tactical Bombers" (visible in the picture).

Anyone want to comment?

Similarly, the A6M2-N is not the plane that is shown there. As the A6M2-N is a Zero with the floats attached.

And the A6M2 Zero is absent all together except in name. I believe it is the carrier version of the Ki-43, but none of these "variants" have their own art?

Let's discuss this. I'd like some info from Daniel or Podcat if possible.

Sorry Paradox I keep moaning about this and podacat was very kind to reply to my moan about the plane models. Please Paradox ask the forum for some plane geeks to suggest the trees. It breaks the fun of the game as does the same tanks being on both sides in the film Patton kills the film.

What you have highlighted is as you have stated wrong. B5N - B6N -B7A simple.

 

[Theodorian]

I feel that it would be a very minor issue to create such a model so that when you upgrade a plane, the new icon appears. Just as @Swinds has said, it should indeed be the following:

The B5N. Then:

The B6N. Finally a B7A Ryusei:

This is literally the evolution of the Japanese carrier borne torpedo force.

This might seem--at first glance--an overtly minor case, but I can overlook that. What I cannot overlook is that the models that say "this is the plane you're using," is simply incorrect and breaks immersion. If I'm flying A6M2 Zero's, I don't want them to look like a Nakajima Ki-43 Oscar.

 

[Elouda]

I can see there being somewhat of an issue with B6N as the 1940 model, given it was only adopted widely in 1943. Hence why I suggest that the B4Y be the 1936 model, the B5N the 1940 model (B5N2 was the main production model, and was only widely produced from 1939). That leaves the B6N or the B7A as the 1944 model. I would probably lean toward the B6N just to keep a consistent progression.

 

[Theodorian]

I can see there being somewhat of an issue with B6N as the 1940 model, given it was only adopted widely in 1943. Hence why I suggest that the B4Y be the 1936 model, the B5N the 1940 model (B5N2 was the main production model, and was only widely produced from 1939). That leaves the B6N or the B7A as the 1944 model. I would probably lean toward the B6N just to keep a consistent progression.

I'm with you @Elouda . I think we are both in agreement that:
1. The B5N and G3M1 Model 11 are not contemporaries of one another.
2. The pictures supplied should reflect the plane used.

 

[Daelyn75]

I have complained several times about the Japanese aircraft tree, as well as the German, and the British, but there has been no reply from any dev. This is potentially easy to fix, but the more difficult part would be the way the naval bombers are designed in the game, which is problematic.

First off, they need to make different models for carrier aircraft if they used them as opposed to twin or four engine naval bombers such that Japan, or even Germany used (fw 200 not in the game) as well as the difference between naval fighters and normal fighters - we will be launching P51s from our carriers - UGH.

I don't see it being fully changed to be as close as historically accurate as the engine allows until they program in a distinction of different planes between carrier versions and land based versions as being separate airplanes. In some cases this may not be much different, since PDS have traditionally listed bf 109s and fw 190s as the German fighters that German carriers use in previous HOI games. But in the case of Japan, and the USA there is a huge difference in what planes were the naval planes, and what were the army planes.

Right now we will see no A6M Zero, no Hellcat, and instead be carrying army planes off of our carriers. You can name the planes whatever you want when you make a variant of them, but can you change the graphic of the icon? I'm not sure if that has ever been properly answered.

Another irk sum thing is just the sheer silly choices that they've made even outside of naval aircraft. I've already listed what German and British bombers should be for which, but they've completely messed up some of them to what I can only come to think of as total ignorance on whomever was the one who chose the aircraft for their roles. For instance, Germany has the Heinkel 111 as a heavy bomber now, where it was really easy to do a little research to come up with the proper heavy bombers and tactical bombers that should be in their place. Then there is the British CAS bomber that they have in 1936 (without looking it all up which I don't feel like doing again because the devs pay no attention to this) as some biplane that had less than 200 planes built and hardly were used at all before their retirement to training aircraft - where as the proper british CAS bomber in which several thousand were built and around 1000 destroyed in the Battle of France and the Low Countries - the Fairey Battle light bomber - which is completely ignored.

They made better choices for what aircraft go in which slots in previous HOI games, so why the total mixup now? Yes, it's Naval aircraft, but much more than that. I haven't even seen the Soviet Aircraft tree yet.

 

[JuicedGoose]

Agreed. A problem is there is no direct "tier" comparison between countries' planes. We have production dates/quantities and roles to do comparisons with. That should be relatively easy to get right.


There also was the Japanese separation of Army and Navy. The separation of Naval carrier based vs Naval land based.

I think HoI3 got it close. Base it off of the number of engines and role of the plane.

 

[Theodorian]

I have complained several times about the Japanese aircraft tree, as well as the German, and the British, but there has been no reply from any dev. This is potentially easy to fix, but the more difficult part would be the way the naval bombers are designed in the game, which is problematic.

First off, they need to make different models for carrier aircraft if they used them as opposed to twin or four engine naval bombers such that Japan, or even Germany used (fw 200 not in the game) as well as the difference between naval fighters and normal fighters - we will be launching P51s from our carriers - UGH.

I don't see it being fully changed to be as close as historically accurate as the engine allows until they program in a distinction of different planes between carrier versions and land based versions as being separate airplanes. In some cases this may not be much different, since PDS have traditionally listed bf 109s and fw 190s as the German fighters that German carriers use in previous HOI games. But in the case of Japan, and the USA there is a huge difference in what planes were the naval planes, and what was the army planes.

Right now we will see no A6M Zero, no Hellcat, and instead be carrying army planes off of our carriers. You can name the planes whatever you want when you make a variant of them, but can you change the graphic of the icon? I'm not sure if that has ever been properly answered.

Another irk sum thing is just the sheer silly choices that they've made even outside of naval aircraft. I've already listed what German and British bombers should be for which, but they've completely messed up some of them to what I can only come to think of as total ignorance on whomever was the one who chose the aircraft for their roles. For instance, Germany has the Heinkel 111 as a heavy bomber now, where it was really easy to do a little research to come up with the proper heavy bombers and tactical bombers that should be in their place. Then there is the British CAS bomber that they have in 1936 (without looking it all up which I don't feel like doing again because the devs pay no attention to this) as some biplane that had less than 200 planes built and hardly were used at all before their retirement to training aircraft - where as the proper british CAS bomber in which several thousand were built and around 1000 destroyed in the Battle of France and the Low Countries - the Fairey Battle light bomber - which is completely ignored.

They made better choices for what aircraft go in which slots in previous HOI games, so why the total mixup now? Yes, it's Naval aircraft, but much more than that. I haven't even seen the Soviet Aircraft tree yet.

I'm not certain why there's no A6M Zero or Hellcat in this game. It is ultimately disappointing and the fix seems so easy.

 

[Admiral Piett]

A6M2-N needs to be changed. It isn't even the right category of aircraft. It is a seaplane fighter, not a carrier attack aircraft. I have lots of other issues with the tree that have already been put forward by others, but that bothers me the most. It is really strange how the Ki-49 is dumped into the heavy bomber line when the G5N1 would work much better.

A = Carrier Fighter
6 = Sixth Generation
M = Mitsubishi
2 = Second Variant
-N = Seaplane Version

 

[Theodorian]

A6M2-N needs to be changed. It isn't even the right category of aircraft. It is a seaplane fighter, not a carrier attack aircraft. I have lots of other issues with the tree that have already been put forward by others, but that bothers me the most. It is really strange how the Ki-49 is dumped into the heavy bomber line when the G5N1 would work much better.

A = Carrier Fighter
6 = Sixth Generation
M = Mitsubishi
2 = Second Variant
-N = Seaplane Version

Spot on, the Imperial Academy has done some good for you! Haha. I understand from other posters that the Imperial Japanese tree isn't the only one that is problematic. That being said, it's the one I am most familiar with. While I doubt that Paradox is not at a loss for a historian in their midst, I fully intend to keep this discussion alive and perhaps catch the glance of a moderator.