No Japanese Zero?

[Theodorian]

I recently saw a picture of the Japanese aviation tech tree and saw they the Fighter slot was filled with the Ki-43 Hayabusa and the Ki-84 Hayate.

Now I understand that the A6M2 Zero was a naval fighter, and the A6M2-N (the floatplane version) seems to be in the game, but is the A6M2 missing or am I merely overlooking it?

If anyone can scrounge up the Japan aviation tech tree picture that would be great!

 

[Kadanz]

wasn't the name zero given to the carrier version of the land based fighter ki-43 hayabusa? I think it's called the A6M Zero-sen in-game if my memory serves me right, not sure if it's been brought up in a DD or in a discussion somewhere but the A6M makes sense to be the 'zero'.

 

[ringhloth]

There are separate carrier and land-based fighters.

 

[Orlunu]

There are separate carrier and land-based fighters.

So, what about the tech trees we saw? Are they just outdated? Are the carrier fighters in a different tab?

 

[ringhloth]

So, what about the tech trees we saw? Are they just outdated? Are the carrier fighters in a different tab?

You can see a small icon in each fighter spot for the carrier variant.

 

[tom_jones]

You can see a small icon in each fighter spot for the carrier variant.

However, that icon simply enables the played to develop carrier-based variant of the base plane by the looks of it. Similar to how the tank tree has icons on units which allow to develop tank destroyers and such. When the tank variant option was used in one of WWW streams it didn't appear to go as far as to change the icon and/or name to reflect it's actually a different vehicle with potentially very different characteristics/performance (though I guess you can give it a custom type name, if that helps)

 

[xtfoster]

wasn't the name zero given to the carrier version of the land based fighter ki-43 hayabusa? I think it's called the A6M Zero-sen in-game if my memory serves me right, not sure if it's been brought up in a DD or in a discussion somewhere but the A6M makes sense to be the 'zero'.

It is called the 'Zero' because one of its two official names was the 'Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter' (The other is A6M - A means Carrier Fighter, 6 means it was the 6th plane of that type accepted from the manufacturer, and M is the Code for the manufacturer (most but not all used the first name of the company)). And calling it a 'Zero-sen' is a horrible bastardization of the nickname given to it by its pilots: Reisen = Zero-fighter.

My guess is that they will use the Army designations for the non-carrier aircraft (unless there are no army types available). The Army designations for the aircraft are either 'Army Type ## ...' or Ki-##.

 

[Zupanicarr]

 

[Orlunu]

However, that icon simply enables the played to develop carrier-based variant of the base plane by the looks of it. Similar to how the tank tree has icons on units which allow to develop tank destroyers and such. When the tank variant option was used in one of WWW streams it didn't appear to go as far as to change the icon and/or name to reflect it's actually a different vehicle with potentially very different characteristics/performance (though I guess you can give it a custom type name, if that helps)

I thought it changed into a Marder when they TD'd it? Maybe I'm misremembering/dreaming.

 

[aruon]

a6m2?

it's right here. then senpai-mobile-kun.

 

[Kadanz]

It is called the 'Zero' because one of its two official names was the 'Navy Type 0 Carrier Fighter' (The other is A6M - A means Carrier Fighter, 6 means it was the 6th plane of that type accepted from the manufacturer, and M is the Code for the manufacturer (most but not all used the first name of the company)). And calling it a 'Zero-sen' is a horrible bastardization of the nickname given to it by its pilots: Reisen = Zero-fighter.

My guess is that they will use the Army designations for the non-carrier aircraft (unless there are no army types available). The Army designations for the aircraft are either 'Army Type ## ...' or Ki-##.

Excellent explanation!

 

[SlinkyTWF]

And calling it a 'Zero-sen' is a horrible bastardization of the nickname given to it by its pilots: Reisen = Zero-fighter.

Since we're being critical of bastardizations, "Reisen" was a shortening of ｢零式艦上戦闘機｣ / "rei-shiki-kanjō-sentōki" / "Type-0 carrier-based fighter."

 

[Denkt]

You can name your aircrafts with the variant system. For pictures, Im sure somebody will make some that you can mod in for your aircrafts.

 

[Daelyn75]

There is a lot that I disagree with when it comes to the aircraft in the US, German, British, and Japanese aircraft trees. I'm fairly certain like it has already been said here, that a carrier variant will still be the same airplane.

It's a bit disappointing. Though further changes through DLC or mods might make it better.

 

[uther4117]

MODS are the answer my friends,, Wait for the glory of BLACK ICE TEAM shine upon this "abstraction" of a strategy game to become fully potent and satisfying..

 

[Orlunu]

MODS are the answer my friends,, Wait for the glory of BLACK ICE TEAM shine upon this "abstraction" of a strategy game to become fully potent and satisfying..

The new tech tree system does present more of a danger from minor errors, though, as well as more opportunity to modders. How easy is it to contact them to get corrections made?

 

[tom_jones]

I thought it changed into a Marder when they TD'd it? Maybe I'm misremembering/dreaming.

You can get a pretty good look of them side by side in the recent (9th) WWW:

as far as I can tell it's virtually the same picture for both units, just with shell icon added for the 'tank destroyer' variant, and generic name instead of the base model.

 

[GsusNSV]

as far as I can tell it's virtually the same picture for both units, just with shell icon added for the 'tank destroyer' variant, and generic name instead of the base model.

What probably will be changing for release. We saw in the WWWs that, for now, at least the name for some sub-variants will change.

(Thats an older screenshot from a japanese magazine)

Also Airplanes will have different names for the land-based and carrier variant.
Gladiator -> Nimrod
Hurricane -> Sea Gladiator
Swordfish -> Shark


The picture for these 'named' variants, are probably not yet finished. If we look at the naval tech tree, every ship type has the exact same picture. No difference for Germany or GB or the tech levels.

 

[Daelyn75]

What probably will be changing for release. We saw in the WWWs that, for now, at least the name for some sub-variants will change.
View attachment 161471
(Thats an older screenshot from a japanese magazine)

Also Airplanes will have different names for the land-based and carrier variant.
Gladiator -> Nimrod
Hurricane -> Sea Gladiator
Swordfish -> Shark


The picture for these 'named' variants, are probably not yet finished. If we look at the naval tech tree, every ship type has the exact same picture. No difference for Germany or GB or the tech levels.

I hope so, but another thing they need to do is change the airplane icons. I don't want my A6M2 Zeros looking like the Ki-43 Hayabusa with just a name change. Also, they really screwed up with the naval bombers. The naval bombers so far shown are the carrier variants, which leaves out the Fw 200 Condor, and the Japanese line of twin engine naval bombers - the G3M Nell, and G4M Betty.

The need to put in the larger twin engine naval bombers as the main aircraft over the smaller single engine airplanes. Then when you research the carrier version, the single engine naval bomber with proper name and icon is shown. What they have done, which I SMH at is that they have put the Japanese twin engine naval bombers into the tactical slots, when there were several twin engine army bombers that the Japanese used that should be there instead.

So far from what I have seen, if they could change the airplane to be different when a carrier version is chosen, then all these issues can easily be fixed.

Also, the Heinkel He 111 in the first strategic bomber slot?? WTH!!!! The Germans only constructed the He 177 Grief that was used in combat. OK, but what about the four engine He 277 that was secretly flown by Heinkel because Goering forbade anymore pestering about trying to get the He 177 right? Or the finalized He 274 that was a high altitude heavy bomber that was ready after the war and flown for the first time?

All I'm saying is that instead of shuffling aircraft around into the wrong places, they need to put them into their proper spots.


Japanese Fighters

1933 - Type 91? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nakajima_Army_Type_91_Fighter - I'd go with the Ki -10 "Perry" which was still used during the time period even though it was produced in 1935 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawasaki_Ki-10 )

1936 - Ki-27 "Nate" / Carrier Version - A5M "Claude"

1940 - Ki-43 Hayabusa / Carrier Version - A6M Zeke "Zero"

1944 - Ki-84 "Frank" / Carrier Version - A7M Reppu "Sam" (Only 10 aircraft built but was to replace the A6M)

Japanese Naval Bombers (Twin engine for base tech)

1936 - G3M Rikko "Nell" / Carrier Version - B5N "Kate"

1940 - G4M "Betty" / Carrier Version - B6N Tenzan "Jill"

1944 - P1Y1 Ginga "Frances" / Carrier Version - B7A Ryusei "Grace"

Japanese Tactical Bombers

1933 - Ki-2 "Louise"

1936 - Ki-21 "Sally"

1940 - Ki-48 "Lilly"

1944 - Ki-74 (Never entered service, it's the only plane that possibly fits this category though) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachikawa_Ki-74

The Japanese strategic bombers are fine as far as I am concerned. For a list of all Japanese planes, look up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aircraft_of_Japan#Fighters_Pre_1945

German Tactical Bombers

1933 - Do 17 (First flight in 1934)

1936 - He 111 (ready and used by the Luftwaffe in 1937)

1940 - Ju 88

1944 - Ju 188

German Strategic Bombers

1936 - Ju 89 or Do 19 (both had prototypes in 1936 and 1937)

1940 - He 177 Grief

1944 - Me 264 or Ju 390 (Both America Bomber competitors)

German Naval Bombers (Twin engine or four for base tech)

1936 - Fw 200 Condor (civil prototype in 1937)

1940 - Ju 188 E-2 (apparently one of the best in the war)

1944 - Ju 290 (A5-A7 versions were to be fitted with anti-ship missiles but never happened) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkers_Ju_290#Design_and_development

Unless there were designs or prototypes for other aircraft for the 1940 or 1944 German naval bombers that I am unaware of then these were the only ones historically put to use. The single engine planes currently put into the German naval bomber slots would be the carrier versions. An easy way of seeing all German aircraft of WW2 is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_..._Germany#Bombers_and_ground-attack_aircraft_2

Let me know if there are any issues with my list.

 

[Theodorian]

Here is a screen grab of the Japanese Aviation Tree. It is from Page four of the Japan DD.

There's a few coherent errors here:
-- Under Naval Bomber it lists the A6M2-N. Not only is that not the appropriate plane name for what appears to be a B6N, but this is what an A6M2-N is:

Secondly, there is no A6M2 Zero? That being said, someone alleged to the fact that if you make the Carrier Variant of the Ki-43 Hayabusa, it will be the A6M2 Zero?

We've seen however that "Variants" don't much seem to change anything but some stats. So we WILL have an A6M2, it will just be a Ki-43 Hayabuse on a carrier?

SADFACE.