Quickest/best way to get some more Japanese strike aircraft into the game

[IceFire]

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?

[wheelsup_cavu]

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

[IceFire]

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?

[Nil]

I agree with you Icefire;
Our game needs late bombers
Here you can see differences between D3a1 and D3a2 Japanese bombers "val"

[gaunt1]

+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.

[ElAurens]

Need more Army planes.

[Pursuivant]

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by Nil

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.

[IceFire]

Originally Posted by ElAurens

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).

[HarryKlein]

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 ?