Japanese carriers aircraft issues

[Pikkozoikum]

1 minute ago, MortenTardo said:

Kremlin exists in the game soooo. Does it really matter? Might as well be UFO's instead of planes. Since we are all about fantasy i mean. 

Just because we had ships, that doesn't existed, doesn mean, that we have to go with bad decisions, when good decisions are actually avaiable. Also it's something different, if you implement ships, that were planned for building - to potentially they could have existed. But using something, that were not able to use for that case, is just wrong. I mean we could place artillery tanks on a CV as well...

[wot_2016_gunner]

4 minuti fa, MortenTardo ha scritto:

Might as well be UFO's instead of planes

You said U.F.O !!!!

 

[wot_2016_gunner]

4 minuti fa, Pikkozoikum ha scritto:

Just because we had ships, that doesn't existed, doesn mean, that we have to go with bad decisions, when good decisions are actually avaiable. Also it's something different, if you implement ships, that were planned for building - to potentially they could have existed. But using something, that were not able to use for that case, is just wrong. I mean we could place artillery tanks on a CV as well...

Exactly, i'm not against paper ship as long as they are done correcttly.

I remember a US Navy officer talking in a documentary about the F-18 that a Navy Aircraft can adapt quite well to "requirements" or needs of the Army (i.e land based aircrafts), but it's not the opposite; a navy airplane has to be precisely designed to fit that role.

[ClappingLollies]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Just because we had ships, that doesn't existed, doesn mean, that we have to go with bad decisions, when good decisions are actually avaiable.

Again. Kremlin. 

5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Also it's something different, if you implement ships, that were planned for building - to potentially they could have existed. But using something, that were not able to use for that case, is just wrong. I mean we could place artillery tanks on a CV as well...

I think WG has lowered the standard for "planned" to levels that it should not matter. Just because someone draw a boat on a napkin does not mean it was planned. 

 

On a bit less trolly note tho, seriously there are so many things that should take prority over the correct planes that even CVs hardly see. 

 

 

[Pikkozoikum]

12 minutes ago, Panocek said:

this plane is "B-25 big", very unlikely to shove one under the deck

Still better choice than J5N.

P1Y1 is maybe too big - the position on a CV is incorrect. But the purpose is correct - bombing.

J5N has the wrong position and the wrong purpose.

So it's 1 wrong things vs 2 wrong things

 

It's also the question, what would happen, if the J5N would carrier a torpedo - could it even take off correctly?

 

But as I said, it's still a bad choice, there are many good choice.

[Pikkozoikum]

19 minutes ago, MortenTardo said:

On a bit less trolly note tho, seriously there are so many things that should take prority over the correct planes that even CVs hardly see.

Actually that should have a high priority. A good graphic and good immersion is important for a game. Just go with the first Battlefield 5 videos, when people notice, when a planes passes them. They all say, that it has a great and realistic immersion.

If a game creates a good immersion, then a player is more statisfied and likes a game more. A player who appreaciates that, will also spent more money in such a game. So it should be important to make such decision right.

Especially when you compare effort to benefit. Changing some planes should be done in one work day. But the benefit is huge, when all the CV players have iconic planes to play. Sure there are always people, who don't care or have any clue about that, but those are also not negative effected. Can't imagine, that it is much work to swap plane models.

[Filipin00]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Actually that should have a high priority. A good graphic and good immersion is important for a game. Just go with the first Battlefield 5 videos, when people notice, when a planes passes them. They all say, that it have a great and realistic immersion.

If a game creates a good immersion, then a player is more statisfied and likes a game more. A player who appreaciate that, will also spent more money in such a game. So it should be important to make such decision right.

Especially when you compare effort to benefit. Changing some planes should be done in one work day. But the benefit is huge, when all the CV players have iconic planes to play. Sure ther are always people, who don't care or have any clue, but those are also not negative effect. Can'T imagine, that it is much work to swap plane models.

Indeed I must agree with the immersion argument. I hate it that iconic planes of WWII and even pre-war are neglected, incorrect plane types and models are used for carriers.....

[El2aZeR]

25 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Actually that should have a high priority. A good graphic and good immersion is important for a game.

 

Considering current CV play completely breaks immersion anyway that's a bit of a moot point.

[CptBarney]

38 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Still better choice than J5N.

P1Y1 is maybe too big - the position on a CV is incorrect. But the purpose is correct - bombing.

J5N has the wrong position and the wrong purpose.

So it's 1 wrong things vs 2 wrong things

 

It's also the question, what would happen, if the J5N would carrier a torpedo - could it even take off correctly?

 

But as I said, it's still a bad choice, there are many good choice.

Too be honest, its a fictional carrier the haku is so what planes it would of had doesnt really matter as long as they actually fit the intended role.

[1MajorKoenig]

On 9/1/2019 at 4:26 PM, Pikkozoikum said:

The easiest solution would be to get rid of stock planes/upgrade planes. Using only "stock planes" without any upgrades. Thus we would gain more plane models and could distribute them on the CVs.

The D3A1 e.g. is a stock plane on Ryujo... one of the most iconic planes and it is stock - almost unused. How bad is that?

I don't like the J5N, especially not for TB AND DB, that's so boring

 

In the german forum we had once a thread about redesigning the planes choice, and it was a pretty nice choice.

I try to translate @stinkmorchel choice:

 

T4 pre war

T6 early war

T8 mid-late wart

T10 late, post war

Attackplanes aka JaBo/KI Fighter

 

IJN

T4   A4N , D1A, B4Y1

T6 A6M2. D3A, B5N

T8 A6M5 , D4Y1, B6N

T10  A7M, D4Y3, B7A

 

USN

T4  F3F, SBC, BM-2

T6  F4F, SBD,  TBD

T8  F6F,  SB2C, TBF

T10  F4U-4, AD-1, BTD

 

RN

T4 SeaGladiator, Swordfish

T6 SeaHurricane,Albacore (ist aber auch Doppeldecker..)

T8 Seafire III, Barracuda

T10 SeaFury, Spearfish

 

Graf Zeppelin

T8 Fw190D, Ju87E, Fw190F

 

T8 Kaga with T6 planes choice

T8 Saipan with T10

 

IJN looks much better like that.

 

For Germany I would rather use:

 

T4: Fokker D VII / Hansa-Brandenburg 

T6: He 112 / He 50 / Fi 167

T8: Bf 109T / Ju87C (both as DB and TB)

T10: Me 262 / Ar 234 (TB + DB)

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Too be honest, its a fictional carrier the haku is so what planes it would of had doesnt really matter as long as they actually fit the intended role.

As you say, the intended role.

J5Ns role -> intercepting, starts from airfields, not CVs. Bombload 250k

Their role is not Torpedobombing, or dropping 800 kg bombs on ships. so it doesn't fit the intended role?

It's like giving a DD the role of a BB. We use the model of Harugumo, but gets guns like Yamato

Also I think the J5N couldn't even land on a CV, the role is not to land on CVs, but on airfields.

[Pikkozoikum]

19 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

 

Considering current CV play completely breaks immersion anyway that's a bit of a moot point.

Well, that's your personal opinion, but to make the discussion viable for you: Imagine we are pre-0.8.0 with RTS CVs and the Haku would have J5N TBs and DBs.

[CptBarney]

7 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

As you say, the intended role.

J5Ns role -> intercepting, starts from airfields, not CVs. Bombload 250k

Their role is not Torpedobombing, or dropping 800 kg bombs on ships. so it doesn't fit the intended role?

It's like giving a DD the role of a BB. We use the model of Harugumo, but gets guns like Yamato

Also I think the J5N couldn't even land on a CV, the role is not to land on CVs, but on airfields.

So for bombers you could have the following:

 

Ki-74

P1Y

G8N

Ki-67

 

For torp bombers the following:

 

B7A

and maybe any of the above repurposed.

 

Otherwise you might have to just make the bloody things up at this point.

 

 

[El2aZeR]

2 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Well, that's your personal opinion

 

Believe it or not, Mr. "I know a lot about game development because I worked in something completely unrelated", but immersion can be quantified and is as such not subjective.

 

3 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

Imagine we are pre-0.8.0 with RTS CVs and the Haku would have J5N TBs and DBs

 

The RTS iteration made enough sense so that such a thing could've been called into question. The rework however is very much different.

Again, why bother with the "immersiveness" of plane models when the whole rework requires you to suspend your disbelief anyway? Frankly I don't see the point.

[Pikkozoikum]

3 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

So for bombers you could have the following:

 

Ki-74 

P1Y

G8N

Ki-67

 

For torp bombers the following:

 

B7A

and maybe any of the above repurposed.

 

Otherwise you might have to just make the bloody things up at this point.

 

 

I don't know, what you mean with those large long-range bombers^^

There are many good suggestion to pick the correct planes for each CV.

 

For Haku would be B7A a prefect TB, but could also be used as DB.

The Alternativ could be the D4Y3, which is currently used on the Kaga

[Pikkozoikum]

2 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

The RTS iteration made enough sense so that such a thing could've been called into question. The rework however is very much different.

Again, why bother with the "immersiveness" of plane models when the whole rework requires you to suspend your disbelief anyway? Frankly I don't see the point.

The topic is about the picked planes models, which are a bad decision imo.

[CptBarney]

5 minutes ago, Pikkozoikum said:

I don't know, what you mean with those large long-range bombers^^

There are many good suggestion to pick the correct planes for each CV.

 

For Haku would be B7A a prefect TB, but could also be used as DB.

The Alternativ could be the D4Y3, which is currently used on the Kaga

Suisei would be outdated hense the later models, guess you just downscale them and make them into medium bombers.

But yeah the B7A should be fine.

[El2aZeR]

1 minute ago, Pikkozoikum said:

The topic is about the picked planes models, which are a bad decision imo.

 

And again I question why one should bother complaining about those anyway? The rework in itself requires you to throw logic completely out of the window, thus instead of complaining about the planes not making sense one should perhaps be excited and grateful that you can play with planes that never could've flown off of the deck of a carrier?

This kind of "fun first" approach is after all something players like you have preached during the entirety of the rework, so why not just apply it to this aspect as well?

 

Besides, even if it were an issue, investing time and money to fix it, regardless of how minuscule the effort would be, is time and money down the drain given the population and thus potential revenue of CVs.

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Suisei would be outdated hense the later models, guess you just downscale them and make them into medium bombers.

But yeah the B7A should be fine.

The outdated ist still onemillion time better, than a plane, that can't land on a CV, which carries a torpedo, that can't carry a torpedo :D

Also outdated doesn't matter much, I belive, they used D3A1 until the end of the war? D3A1 got even produced until 1944. So it wouldn't be unrealistic to have "old" planes on new CVs.

Though old is relative, beside the B7A there was no  newer Divebomber, especially no D-type plane So it's the newest D-plane, isn't it?

[Panocek]

25 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

Ki-74

P1Y

G8N

Ki-67

Once more, I dare you to take off and land in medium bomber on a carrier, and then move it to hangar for maintenance

[Pikkozoikum]

4 minutes ago, El2aZeR said:

Besides, even if it were an issue, investing time and money to fix it, regardless of how minuscule the effort would be, is time and money down the drain given the population and thus potential revenue of CVs.

As I said, swapping models shouldn'T be much effort, but way higher benefit. I would guess you can do that in one day.

Example: There are 10 Ju-87 Fanboys who don't own Gz, now you give GZ the Ju-87. The fanboys buy that CV because they want the Ju-87. 460 € for one day. Just an example. People are willing to buy more, if they are convinced. The plane choice is a bad decision. A good plane choice is a good choice

[CptBarney]

4 minutes ago, Panocek said:

Once more, I dare you to take off and land in medium bomber on a carrier, and then move it to hangar for maintenance

I dare you to find historical journals on the kremlin fighting in ww2.

 

like i said it doesn’t matter much since the carrier itself is fictional.

 

but then i never had a problem with the plane models because when ever i play cv’s it doesnt actually feel like im playing one.

 

so the sense of immersion is dead whenever i the captain for some strange reason take of in my planes (lol) to strike some poor sod half way across the map.

[Panocek]

2 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

like i said it doesn’t matter much since the carrier itself is fictional.

There is difference between fiction and fantasy. And operating not that small twin engine bomber on a carrier is example of the latter.

[CptBarney]

Just now, Panocek said:

There is difference between fiction and fantasy. And operating not that small twin engine bomber on a carrier is example of the latter.

Both are the same.

 

make believe. Fantasy is a genre of fiction.

 

like i said its irrelevant what goes on the carrier for various reasons, most of them being the lack of actual naval planes wargaming can choose from.

 

also im pretty sure haku would be over 60k tonnes so her operating medium bombers is not out of the question.

 

but then i guess you could just use the b7a for both torp and dive bomb runs and something else for rockets.

 

which ironically enough would mean jets.

[Pikkozoikum]

5 minutes ago, CptBarney said:

I dare you to find historical journals on the kremlin fighting in ww2.

 

like i said it doesn’t matter much since the carrier itself is fictional.

 

but then i never had a problem with the plane models because when ever i play cv’s it doesnt actually feel like im playing one.

 

so the sense of immersion is dead whenever i the captain for some strange reason take of in my planes (lol) to strike some poor sod half way across the map.

So just because the rework has not a good immersion for you, it's okay to go with even more bad decisions?

It's like you would say "Yes, well Battleship are not that immersive for me, lets give them V2 Rockets" xD

 

I don't know if you like RTS, or prefer Rework or what ever, but lets go with the design, what you more like, if RTS or Rework

Now Imagine you play your favorite CV. and you get the choice to develop the CV. The developer ask you, which Dive bomber shall they take?

Option A: A fighter with max 250 kg bomb load, which can't land on CVs

Option B: A Dive bomber with 800 kg bomb, developed for CVs

 

 

1 minute ago, Panocek said:

There is difference between fiction and fantasy. And operating not that small twin engine bomber on a carrier is example of the latter.

That reminds me on a note in Pen and Paper called "Realism in a Fantasy world", while a fantasy world is unrealistic, there is still realism like gravity. ^^