Fulqrum Publishing Home   |   Register   |   Today Posts   |   Members   |   UserCP   |   Calendar   |   Search   |   FAQ

Go Back   Official Fulqrum Publishing forum > Fulqrum Publishing > IL-2 Sturmovik > Daidalos Team discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 12-16-2012, 04:45 PM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default Quickest/best way to get some more Japanese strike aircraft into the game

I do a lot of online scenarios so a variety of flyable aircraft is pretty essential anytime you sit down and want to do something. I've been venturing a lot away from the standard fare of Stukas, Ju88s and IL-2s. We've had some great additions to the line up over the year and the IL-4 is a ton of fun.

In the next patch we're getting a couple of types that will really help with the Japanese aircraft situation. B5N is a huge gap that will be filled and the Ki-45 is a potent fighter-bomber.

We have a fair number of fighters already although there are some gaps which make some online scenarios difficult but I think the bigger gaps are in the strike and bomber aircraft. I'm just wondering what people think would be the best and easiest way to get more flyable types that would be useful in some way?

I keep coming back to the D3A2. I'm not sure how different the cockpit/gunner station would be versus the D3A1 that we have but it has a more powerful engine, higher top speed, and use frontline use across three years of war.

I also think about bombers. We have no Japanese Army bombers so a Ki-67 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Ki-67) might do... but it might be easier to get a later model G4M in the game? We have a early model which is great but in online scenarios we're using that from everything to do in 1942 through to 1945. The Ki-21 "Sally" was a major type as was the Ki-48 "Lily".

Thoughts?
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 12-16-2012, 07:08 PM
wheelsup_cavu's Avatar
wheelsup_cavu wheelsup_cavu is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Riverside County, California
Posts: 302
Default

Yes to all??, or doesn't that help much.

Seriously though you have some solid choices and all of them would make great additions to the sim for the Pacific theatre operations. Of them all I like the Sally the most though.


Wheels
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 12-17-2012, 03:59 AM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

The Sally would be useful for sure. Maybe a late model Betty. Very heavy defensive armament on the last versions. I'm just not sure if the interior would be largely the same or so different that it might as well be a new airplane?
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 12-17-2012, 07:03 AM
Nil's Avatar
Nil Nil is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 124
Default

I agree with you Icefire;
Our game needs late bombers
Here you can see differences between D3a1 and D3a2 Japanese bombers "val"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 12-17-2012, 11:33 AM
gaunt1 gaunt1 is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: India
Posts: 314
Default

+1 for D3A2. It was much more common than the A1, over 1000 was built.

I'd suggest the Yokusuka D4Y, both with the Atsuta and MK8 Kinsei engines. Not as famous as the D3, but was an excellent dive bomber.

Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 12-17-2012, 11:37 AM
ElAurens's Avatar
ElAurens ElAurens is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: The Great Black Swamp of Ohio
Posts: 2,185
Default

Need more Army planes.
__________________


Personally speaking, the P-40 could contend on an equal footing with all the types of Messerschmitts, almost to the end of 1943.
~Nikolay Gerasimovitch Golodnikov
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 12-17-2012, 08:08 PM
Pursuivant Pursuivant is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 1,439
Default

The D3A2 would probably be the easiest, but it would still need some 3D work on the engine plus the bomb crutch and animations for it.

A G4M2 could possibly be converted from the Baka-carrying version of the G4M2e we've got currently, but it would need modifications to just about every crew station.

The G4M3 would require different side and rear gunner stations.

There are some modded versions of Japanese aircraft that look pretty good, but I have no idea if they're up to TD's standards.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 12-18-2012, 04:06 AM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nil View Post
I agree with you Icefire;
Our game needs late bombers
Here you can see differences between D3a1 and D3a2 Japanese bombers "val"
Never see the differences so well illustrated. Thanks for sharing! So a few differences... new nose (I knew that), revised wing with folding section, new glass section at the back for the gunner.

It's interesting when they were working on Pacific Fighters they gave us the early Val but it really only saw use in the opening stages of the war. The D3A2 was used frontline into 1944 if I remember right. Then the D4Y became the predominant dive bomber for the Japanese navy.
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 12-18-2012, 04:08 AM
IceFire IceFire is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,879
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ElAurens View Post
Need more Army planes.
Indeed! A Ki-67 or Ki-48 would be helpful potentially... not a bomber but the most produced Ki-61 variant was the Ki-61 Tei which was missing from Pacific Fighters (another odd and glaring omission).
__________________
Find my missions and much more at Mission4Today.com
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 12-18-2012, 07:57 AM
HarryKlein HarryKlein is offline
Approved Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 15
Default

You could also add to the list the Ki 30, Ki 51, G3M, P1Y (or the Helldiver for the USN ) but none of them are easy additions.

By trying to cover the whole war, PF was simply too ambitious from the start.
The question is IMHO : what can DT do with their limited means ? (supposing they want to )

Knowing that no matter how, gaps are inevitable.
Should they keep trying to cover the whole war,
or should they focus on a limited periods in order to get at least something complete for all sides ie : pre, early, mid or late war ?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2007 Fulqrum Publishing. All rights reserved.