So where is the Ki-34?

[el cid again]

Attempting to understand the AE version of WITP, I have been looking at the database.
It has MANY improvements over the original.
But there is a striking omission: where is the Ki-34? This is an IMPORTANT JAAF
air transport when the war begins. For one thing, it is the equipment of the airborne,
both for training and for operations. Granted that longer range transports exist,
and most or even all units with this light transport should upgrade as soon as possible,
why does the historical mod not include it?

Far less significant, the Navy G5N2-L transport variant of the failed G5N1 bomber
program is missing. While it is not cost efficient, it is the ONLY four engine, long range
heavy lifter available to Japan (other than flying boats). Four line machines exist when
the war begins - and they remained in service until 1945. Players might want to build
even more. But why it was omitted could be that it was not built in significant numbers.
Ki-34 is much harder to explain. Using the Ki-57 in its place overstates the reach of
more than a few air transport units - and may require more Ki-57s than actually existed.

[DuckofTindalos]

Should we include the Tiger Moth as well?[8|]

[el cid again]

Was the Tiger Moth a significant military aircraft deployed over a substantial
number of units which performed useful missions? The Ki-34 was preferred
for training, and where range permitted, for operations - because it permitted
the ideal number of troops at risk in one package (a squad) - and because it
was cheap relative to other aircraft ( so you didn't lose as much investment
when it was shot down or crashed for operational reasons ). Even so, this
was its SECONDARY role - it was also widely used for air cargo in the unglamorous
task of air logistics. It is not widely known that Tojo was "air minded" - the
first Japanese politician to travel mainly by flying - and a former senior JAAF
officer who had focused on relatively simple, relatively short range, relatively
robust aircraft designs which made sense in the context of the thinking of that
pre war era (when conflict with the USSR was regarded as most likely). He
had a role in the selection of many or most JAAF aircraft operational when the
Pacific War began. That they turned out to be less than ideal over the long
ranges required for that conflict - and the cold weather capability was not
particularly useful - does not change that THESE were the machines JAAF went
to war with. We should model every important one. And we hardly should
exaggerate the range capability of war start units - unless we are deliberately
trying to exaggerate Japanese military capability for some reason. I wish to
understand the reasoning that allowed such a significant machine not to be
present in the allegedly well researched AE OB?

But, no, I don't think it is a great machine - except in a logistical sense. IF
our game allowed the cost of an aircraft to be related to the amount of aluminum
needed to build it, and the HP of its engines, it might be more attractive to have
cheaper aircraft. As it is - you can build any 2 engine transport for the same
cost. Might as well build DC-3 (er, L2D2) - in this system.

The other question related to this machine is - where is the Ku-8 glider?
700 were built. We have the glider forces. Why not their mount?

[Shark7]

The Tiger Moth was a primary trainer for the RAF, however in game terms it isn't going to be significant since training is abstracted.

[el cid again]

I concur. There were some observation planes and trainers pressed for naval search,
but as far as I can see, all these made it into the game.

Which begs the question: why no Ki-34? Do we not care if JAAF air transports
are overrated and misrepresented at game start?

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

I concur. There were some observation planes and trainers pressed for naval search,
but as far as I can see, all these made it into the game.

Which begs the question: why no Ki-34? Do we not care if JAAF air transports
are overrated and misrepresented at game start?

I don't see that at this point it will be added to the standard or more popular mods (for any number of reasons). Taunting won't likely succeed, however, place it in your own mod and post the numbers and image here. I am sure that some will use it.

Buck

[timtom]

As previously stated, the methodology employed for in- or exclusion of a particular aircraft was whether that an aircraft could be identified as the primary equipment of any one tactical unit. As concerns the Ki-34, no such unit could be identified come Dec.41, hence it's exclusion. Should anyone be able to furnish verifiable information to the contrary, such is of course very welcome.

[JeffroK]

Have to support Sid in this, it appears that some 300+ were built and used in the transport & training mode.

If the JFB want to waste time & effort building them, it should be up to him.

PS The RAAF Tiger Moths were capable of being armed and used to defend against any IJA assault on the Yarra River!

[Shark7]

If you go by that, there was a civilian Hornet Moth at Hong Kong that was pressed into service to defend the island, IIRC. Should it be included? After all, the 7 aircraft the RAF and RN had at Hong Kong were wiped out in the first air attack...4 Walrus and 3 Vildebeest IIRC.

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: timtom

As previously stated, the methodology employed for in- or exclusion of a particular aircraft was whether that an aircraft could be identified as the primary equipment of any one tactical unit. As concerns the Ki-34, no such unit could be identified come Dec.41, hence it's exclusion. Should anyone be able to furnish verifiable information to the contrary, such is of course very welcome.

Actually it is interesting, because THORA was available in WITP, and used in starting Air Units.

Also, considering there are some really weird models available (like Ka-1, and I have not find ANY unit using it, or WILLOW), why not Ki-34?

Of course if it is actually NOT available. I have not checked it.

[witpqs]

I understand what you guys are saying, but I think that timtom's criteria remains unsatisfied:

ORIGINAL: timtom

As previously stated, the methodology employed for in- or exclusion of a particular aircraft was whether that an aircraft could be identified as the primary equipment of any one tactical unit. As concerns the Ki-34, no such unit could be identified come Dec.41, hence it's exclusion. Should anyone be able to furnish verifiable information to the contrary, such is of course very welcome.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I understand what you guys are saying, but I think that timtom's criteria remains unsatisfied:

ORIGINAL: timtom

As previously stated, the methodology employed for in- or exclusion of a particular aircraft was whether that an aircraft could be identified as the primary equipment of any one tactical unit. As concerns the Ki-34, no such unit could be identified come Dec.41, hence it's exclusion. Should anyone be able to furnish verifiable information to the contrary, such is of course very welcome.

No, I'm not arguing against it. I understand fully. Why model in an aircraft that was not used in an actual combat unit or has only one instance of it (my tiger moth example).

If it is the case that every rattle-trap of a plane that was even present in the area were added, then things like supplies, partisans, etc would seem out of place when abstracted as well.

Basically, this can open up a can of worms over some aircraft that had very little impact on the actual battles.

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I understand what you guys are saying, but I think that timtom's criteria remains unsatisfied:

ORIGINAL: timtom

As previously stated, the methodology employed for in- or exclusion of a particular aircraft was whether that an aircraft could be identified as the primary equipment of any one tactical unit. As concerns the Ki-34, no such unit could be identified come Dec.41, hence it's exclusion. Should anyone be able to furnish verifiable information to the contrary, such is of course very welcome.

No, I'm not arguing against it. I understand fully. Why model in an aircraft that was not used in an actual combat unit or has only one instance of it (my tiger moth example).

If it is the case that every rattle-trap of a plane that was even present in the area were added, then things like supplies, partisans, etc would seem out of place when abstracted as well.

Basically, this can open up a can of worms over some aircraft that had very little impact on the actual battles.

Your example quotes the use of 1 aircraft and in your mind think this covers the dismissal of the OP which covers an aircraft which had some 317 examples built.

Given the vast ability of the WITPAE database, adding the stats for one more type isnt going to break anything. If a JFB wants to build and equip units with this type then its up to them, if they would rather produce double its number in modern fighters they may chose to go down that route. Maybe adding the 1000+ Tiger Moths built in Australia to the database would be more relevant than adding your sole RAFVR Tiger!

AGAIN, the developers want us to go down thier idea of WW2.

TIMTOM's brief might make sense for vanilla, but again I raise the comment that the game is capable of development well past that level, as many fantastic mods have shown.

PS, if Sid is still here, post the data you would use to add the aircraft to the game and let those who wish to do so, add it to their game.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I understand what you guys are saying, but I think that timtom's criteria remains unsatisfied:

No, I'm not arguing against it. I understand fully. Why model in an aircraft that was not used in an actual combat unit or has only one instance of it (my tiger moth example).

If it is the case that every rattle-trap of a plane that was even present in the area were added, then things like supplies, partisans, etc would seem out of place when abstracted as well.

Basically, this can open up a can of worms over some aircraft that had very little impact on the actual battles.

Your example quotes the use of 1 aircraft and in your mind think this covers the dismissal of the OP which covers an aircraft which had some 317 examples built.

Given the vast ability of the WITPAE database, adding the stats for one more type isnt going to break anything. If a JFB wants to build and equip units with this type then its up to them, if they would rather produce double its number in modern fighters they may chose to go down that route. Maybe adding the 1000+ Tiger Moths built in Australia to the database would be more relevant than adding your sole RAFVR Tiger!

AGAIN, the developers want us to go down thier idea of WW2.

TIMTOM's brief might make sense for vanilla, but again I raise the comment that the game is capable of development well past that level, as many fantastic mods have shown.

PS, if Sid is still here, post the data you would use to add the aircraft to the game and let those who wish to do so, add it to their game.

If that is the case, then the Beechcraft C-45 Kansan, or Expediter II (in British service) is missing as well. The RAF acquired 1100 of them as the Expediter II, and the USN and USMC acquired over 1500 examples for use as trainers, transports and other duties.

The OOB is not complete...the game doesn't model every single training or transport squadron, and I'm sure the Dev Team weighed the impact and importance of each aircraft before deciding which ones made the final cut. Personally, I don't want to have to manage that many air groups, especially when all they were used for were rear echelon liason and transport. I bet I'm not alone in this. Modders can always add any they feel are missing.

And I never said that someone couldn't mod in what they want to, but I do understand (having been part of actually developing a game myself) why the decisions that were made were made. There comes a point where some things have to be sacrificed for the sake of playability and getting the game released. It sucks, but resources are limited, so some things you want just don't make it in. [:(]

[m10bob]

Actually, the Japanese might benefit from having that many planes to move supplies around. Of course they had them in real life.

In original vanilla WITP I was not able to get a plane like the Avro Anson included, yet the Aussies had maybe a hundred of them at a time they needed them, for maritime and ASW duties.

AE has gone a loooooong way toward making the game more realistic, more playable, and historically more correct.

Sometimes we need overlook the people who are bringing things to the table, and instead look at what is on the table?

Men make rules. If we don't break them at times, we will never appreciate why the rules are there, nor identify bad rules.

[Buck Beach]

ORIGINAL: m10bob


Sometimes we need overlook the people who are bringing things to the table, and instead look at what is on the table?

Men make rules. If we don't break them at times, we will never appreciate why the rules are there, nor identify bad rules.

Bless you [&o][&o]

[Nemo121]

It seems to me to make sense to seek to limit the number of various different models of planes especially when some were really of little use or little used.

Rather than going for super-OCD-type accuracy isn't a simple solution to just pick a current plane which is close in function and performance, assign an equivalence ( e.g. 3 x Ki-34s = 1 x Ki-57 ) and just add the appropriate number of those planes in to account for the technical/tactical characteristics and impact of the Ki-34?

I've done that in my mods and it has never generated any significant problems - apart, perhaps, from some purists who want every plane with a production run of 20 to be in the game ( which simply isn't feasible OR, even desirable). I'm reminded of how the belief that everything could be predicted if everything could be quantified led to hugely complex wargaming systems which, when push came to shove, didn't result in appreciable more accurate results than old-fashioned highly abstracted systems. I'm not sure that the hassle of including the Ki-34 would actually yield a significantly improved game and it might actually yield a disimproved one when the same rules which would lead to the Ki-34s inclusion would be applied to other forces and nations.

More detail is not necessarily better... especially if it just serves to cloud the basic issue.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Actually, the Japanese might benefit from having that many planes to move supplies around. Of course they had them in real life.

In original vanilla WITP I was not able to get a plane like the Avro Anson included, yet the Aussies had maybe a hundred of them at a time they needed them, for maritime and ASW duties.

AE has gone a loooooong way toward making the game more realistic, more playable, and historically more correct.

Sometimes we need overlook the people who are bringing things to the table, and instead look at what is on the table?

Men make rules. If we don't break them at times, we will never appreciate why the rules are there, nor identify bad rules.

Well I think supply movement is abstracted a lot, so just think of them as being in there in that capacity. And both sides do have an over-abundance of shipping available in stock.

The bolded: Agreed. It is also wise to keep in mind that some people are never satisfied. I believe it is time for me to let this topic go now, as there really is nothing more I can add to it. [:)]

[Nemo121]

Sometimes we need overlook the people who are bringing things to the table

I'd suggest that should be ALWAYS instead of sometimes. Either your focus is improving the game ( in which case the source doesn't matter and you consider everything equally ) OR your focus is diluted by personal likes and dislikes which you allow to impinge negatively on your decision-making ( in which case the game suffers).

[inqistor]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
Sometimes we need overlook the people who are bringing things to the table, and instead look at what is on the table?

Well, I can point, at least, THREE Developers of this game, which are SERIOUSLY biased against one of the sides. That begs a question, who have chosen them to do the work?

Men make rules. If we don't break them at times, we will never appreciate why the rules are there, nor identify bad rules.

But what are THE RULES in this case?
There is D1A2 Susie in-game. bi-plane, predecessor of Val. It have ZERO pool, and I do not see ANY future units arriving with it.
There is also Ka-1, which not only have its own FACTORY, but also uses EXCLUSIVE engine, which have its own factory! I do not see any unit arriving with this "plane" either. Whats more, it is Patrol Army plane, and there is NO other Patrol Army planes, so NO unit can "upgrade" to it.

So obviously, it is NOT TRUE, that there was any methodology.


Now, I actually see ONE, potentially serious problem with transport planes. There is 29 transport planes in the pool, and production is set at 8. There is 14 transport airgroups on-map. Some of them not even full. Considering you can add 4 reserve, there is not enough planes in pool to do this.

Now, this is not that hard to achieve, if your loses will be considerable, and it is possible, if you would use Parachute Unit on strong defended hex, suddenly you will be unable to fill units again, because your production is too low. Logically, Japan should have ability to reequip the older model, same as with B4Y Jean, and Susie (if the last had ANY pool).