Japanese Aircraft

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Mon Sep 04, 2000 9:02 pm

Does anyone know of a site where I may contact the designers with my own "2 Cents"?

Thanks,
Stew,

moore4807 · Post by **moore4807** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 12:21 am

Right here! These guys are great for keeping up with the posts. They will usually answer a post within a day or so and are VERY honest about questions and possible bugs. I'm highly impressed with thier site, so leave your "2 cents" right here and somebody will respond with an answer ( may even be some of the regulars on here-they know thier stuff!)
Jim

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 2:13 am

Well, here goes. The last release had quite an array of japanese aircraft and with the various downloads available the graphics improved tenfold (or maybe only ninefold). The thing that concerned me was the inaccuracy with which the Japanese Air Force(IJAAF) was portrayed. I have studied the force for many years. While I am aware of it's gross inadequacy for tasks assigned it the numerous flaws in the data presented in the manual for the game only compounded the games self imposed limitations. This is not a can of worms, it's a case of them! I'd be willing to cite my sources on every position if the designers care to listen (or read). I am in no way upset, this game is the best to date for a two dimensional strategic Pacific War game but if I say nothing and dont like the results.......... Thanks all, Stew

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 3:17 am

What exactly is going wrong with the portrayal IJAAF, if I might ask? (Not in an aggressive tone, but a querative one!) Is it pilot quality, aircraft quality, Sentai numbers or locations, aircraft production, etc . . .? Are your problems located in the OOB, or, in the source code, etc . . .?

Just state exactly what you feel is wrong, and the Matrix team will see if it is possible to correct. Hopefully that will be so

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 4:34 am

Maj. Tom,

I am greatful for the quick response! Yes the data of which I speak is related to OOB and aircraft data and for one aircraft, straight out omission! Permit me to whine. If I may:
1.) In the game: The Ki-45 is made available and even flown by several units in 1941. This is wholely unhistoric. The first unit to receive them was the 5th Senai in August 1942 located in Chiba,(Near Tokyo) Japan). Others being the 21st in October 1942 while in Burma, and the 16th Sentai in November in 1942 while in China.
2.) The Ki-61, 84, and 100 are totally misrepresented in the stats charts. (See #3 for more on the Ki-100.) Evaluations conducted on these aircraft back in the US during the war and after revealed:
The Ki-61 was not truely bested until the arrival of the P-51 in the Pacific and it was on par with the F6F. The Ki-84 could handle all but the best Allied aircraft possibly the F8F (which unfortunately never saw combat)) and then only when outnumbered.
But just the same could outrun and turn the P-51D and 47.
3.) The Ki-100 (HOLD ME BACK!) is flat out omitted from the OOB. Yet saw greater production than the Ki-102 which is included in the OOB. Not just that, it was possibly the best Japanese fighter aircraft of the war! (with the possible exception of the A7M which looked like a P-47 with the manueverability of the F4U) It was flown by inexperienced pilots with 100 or fewer hours experience. These green Japanese pilots fought them to a draw. Occassionaly Japanese pilots bested far more experienced American aces. In the hands of an ace........ Need I say more. If you wish for my sources I'll be happy to give you them. I wont go into the Ki-109 (Ki-67 conversion) and A7M (which was far better than the old A6M airframe, no matter which installment!)
What am I getting at? If you want to add some real flavor, give the Japanese player at the very least access to the aircraft the Japanese flew and dont handicap him with antiquated cookbottle glasses and spam can skins biases of generations gone by. All I want to see is the truth as I've read it, as recorded by Western publishers. (I can't read Japanese, YET!) Stew. :}

Rich Dionne · Post by **Rich Dionne** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 5:58 am

Stew,

We have been totally reworking the aircraft database to make it more historically accurate. I think you'll like the changes when you see the new data. To answer your specific questions...

1) We currently show Ki-45 entering service 16 Aug 42.

2) Ki-61 maneuverability has been upgraded to 23. Ki-84 maneuverability is at 24.

3) Ki-100 has been added to the OOB with a maneuverability of 24.

Cannon and durability ratings have been updated for all aircraft also. Definitely let us know of any other concerns and we will try to address them.

Regards,

Rich Dionne

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 7:48 am

Yep, we are trying to get EVERYTHING as historically correct as we can. This is why the thing is taking so darned long! I learn something new just about every day and have to incorporate it into all of the OBC's! Pretty tedious work!!

Thanks for your suggestions. Even though we addressed most of them, still keep coming with others, as, we might not have gotten to them!

Playing the old PacWar, I never saw the point on building Ki-61's, as, the Ki-44 was equal or better in just about every other aspect.

We included the Ki-100, as, as you said it had a great volume of production and had some sort of impact on the war. Unfortunately we cannot incorporate ALL of the interesting late war Japanese aircraft, due to lack of avalible space in the Aircraft area to create them.

Thanks a lot,

Jeremy,

[This message has been edited by Major Tom (edited September 04, 2000).]

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 9:09 am

Jeremy and Rich,

Good to hear the good news.
I have more to talk about but have other obligations for now. Thanks again for the quick response. I'll get back to you soon. Any thoughts on a Carrier Strike rework?

Stew,

Ed Cogburn · Post by **Ed Cogburn** » Tue Sep 05, 2000 11:04 am

Originally posted by Rich Dionne:
Stew,

We have been totally reworking the aircraft database to make it more historically accurate. I think you'll like the changes when you see the new data. To answer your specific questions
...
[snip list of improvements]
...

Damn, you guys are good...

sulup · Post by **sulup** » Wed Sep 06, 2000 1:59 am

On the topic of Japanese aircraft, who reckons the Ki-27 Nate & A5M Claude are a bit underrated? I think they should both have 1 added to their MVR rating in the OBC's. They were highly maneouevorble planes, they were only let down because of poor arnament and armoring. I would like to hear any arguments to this.

THank you!

sulup · Post by **sulup** » Wed Sep 06, 2000 2:09 am

On the topic of Japanese aircraft, who reckons the Ki-27 Nate & A5M Claude are a bit underrated? I think they should both have 1 added to their MVR rating in the OBC's. They were highly maneouevorble planes, they were only let down because of poor arnament and armoring. I would like to hear any arguments to this.

THank you!

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Wed Sep 06, 2000 4:03 am

As it is right now the Ki-27 now has a Manuverability of 20, instead of 19. The A5M still has its manuverability at 19, as, I heard it wasn't quite as good as the Ki-27 in this aspect. However, manuverability doesn't just mean, well, manuverability. If this were so, virtually all Allies fighters would lose 4-5 points! Speed is taken into account here as well (something that the Allies generally had up on the Japanese!).

sulup · Post by **sulup** » Wed Sep 06, 2000 7:39 am

Originally posted by Major Tom:
As it is right now the Ki-27 now has a Manuverability of 20, instead of 19. The A5M still has its manuverability at 19, as, I heard it wasn't quite as good as the Ki-27 in this aspect. However, manuverability doesn't just mean, well, manuverability. If this were so, virtually all Allies fighters would lose 4-5 points! Speed is taken into account here as well (something that the Allies generally had up on the Japanese!).

You're absolutely right. The Americans were cranking out planes with round 2000hp powerplants compared to Japan's meager 1000 hp planes. They absolutely sacrificed armoring and weapons just to get their planes to fly on 1000hp. The Ki-27 has been regarded as one of the most manouevourable aircraft in history. But I guess if speed and other factors take part in the MVR rating of the planes, then the rating of 20 is perfect.

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Wed Sep 06, 2000 8:05 am

I feel I must add my two cents here(Hey! I started the topic) I must agree that although the Ki-27b was very maneuverable (designed as a counter to the Russian I-15's and 16's encountered in Manchuria; pilots initially detested the Ki-43 for its lack of comparable maneu.) American pilot's discovered the best way to handle the Japanese superior maneuverability was not to dogfight them at all, in the traditional sense. Instead they would attack from a higher altitude with all guns blazing, outdive the Japanese aircraft, and come around for another pass. Lesson; the Americans won by outdiving, outrunning, and occassionally outclimbing their Japanese adversaries. So, there is more to maneu. than meets the eye.

Stew,

sulup · Post by **sulup** » Wed Sep 06, 2000 4:41 pm

The PACWAR memory limitations has forced the program to put all of the diving, speed, climbing, turning and handling characteristics of a plane into the one MVR variable. This makes it difficult to properly model each individual aircraft. Hopefully in War in the pacific the MVR value of a plane will be broken down into smaller variables to handle climbing,speed,turning etc.

Cmdrcain · Post by **Cmdrcain** » Thu Sep 07, 2000 6:26 am

Originally posted by RonStewart:
Jeremy and Rich,

Good to hear the good news.
I have more to talk about but have other obligations for now. Thanks again for the quick response. I'll get back to you soon. Any thoughts on a Carrier Strike rework?

Stew,

Until the Matrix patch comes out,
One can get Bears editor... probably would need have Bear sell it, unless he's released it for free.

With the editor you could make many of the changes you wish for right now.

My pacwar site has some What If types of OOBS
for example, historical and a-historical.

Cmdrcain · Post by **Cmdrcain** » Thu Sep 07, 2000 6:33 am

Originally posted by Ed Cogburn:

Damn, you guys are good...

Yes they are, however Rich, I and some others have played Pacwar a long time and with editor have put out own more historical accurate OOBS, so the guys have had a wealth of discussion of what needs fixing which many of us talked of on the pacwar list.

Good to know They are implementing changes that makes it more historical accurate.

My leanings been to editing A-historical's like what if US had gotten Montana BB's,
What if Technology had moved slower (zeros and F4F's more delayed...so 1941-1942
Buffalos going up vs claudes...)

Major Tom · Post by **Major Tom** » Thu Sep 07, 2000 6:33 am

In regards to a Carrier Strike Rework, I can't speak for any programming change in it, but, I would hazard a guess that Rich's Icon Editor would be fully capable to edit Carrier Strike's Graphics (as it was VERY similar to PacWar). I am not promising anything, just posting a possibility in the far future (well after the PacWar patch is done!).

sethwrkr · Post by **sethwrkr** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 5:21 am

Thought I would reserect this topic since it is recieving some rather uniformed attention.

Seth

RonStewart · Post by **RonStewart** » Fri Jan 05, 2001 7:24 pm

Good Idea! What's the story with Carrier Strike? Also, yes the Icon editor works with Carrier Strike. I've managed to screw up several files. In the hands of an amature I guess......

Stew