Introduction: currently Japan has one >9.0 vehicle, the Type 90. With new changes to RB it has become very penalising to play against huge line-ups of US(SR) and Germany. The suggestion of different Types 74 is a valid one, but they risk the same fate as late Leo 1's due to compromised mobility and sub-par armour. Japan thus needs more top tier tanks. One option is Type 10, and while it should be added in my opinion, it is a very modern tank and that brings in a lot of problems. Another option would be STC-something, but as Smin1080p said in my thread quoted below, information is lacking.

 

Another solution is what I suggest here.

 

Type 90 (B) is a minor modification of Type 90 equipped with LFP add-on plates that served to install the Type 92 mine roller. While I am not sure if such a device is useful in game (though why not introduce minefields on some maps?), technically it is a different Type 90 with slightly different LFP armour. The references and photos are provided below.

 

It is legitimate to observe that adding the (B) as a separate vehicle would be more of a balance decision, hence the tag of this post. However, War Thunder is known to have "clones", tanks and planes whose differences are minimal yet the vehicles are separate (look at the Japanese Sabres for example). 

 

***

Type 90's OP, you will just make Japan even more OP! 

 

I actually prefer my T-80 to the Type, so I beg to differ, a shell and 5 sec autoloader is not everything. The game (safe the SB, where nothing will change) is played in terms of lineups, the Japanese lineup is on the weaker side, although things are worse for some other nations due to lack of any proper 10.0. All of them need help.

 

I can see France getting Leclerc prototypes and service units, and Britain can fetch perhaps more Challies and the Aussie Leo/Abrams. I do not see what to add for Japan besides the (B), the 74 and the 10.

 

Finally when we move to T-80U/Leclerc era, JM33 won't be all that awesome anymore.    

But other Japanese tanks also had minesweeper plates! Add them as separate mods?

 

This is true, as per photos in this comment: 

however again, balance decisions. The Japanese lineup needs and will need even more another competitive vehicle at around 10.0.  

 

References:

(Since DMM has shown us their ability to gather information, I would hope they can recover more if the suggestion passes to consideration) 

http://web.archive.org/web/20040114032559fw_/http://jda-clearing.jda.go.jp:80/kunrei/i_fd/iz1993d9003b.html --- Japanese Defence Agency, archived website, unfortunately some images are corrupt, but the (B) modification is explicit. Any uncorrupt version of that archive is very welcome.

 

(tip: google translate page is not the worst alternative, if you are like me)

 

http://eaglet.skr.jp/MILITARY/90.htm another mention of 90 (B) in the text and a photo. 

 

Previous discussion thread:

Hat tip: Tasty95215 for bringing up those images. 

 

iz1993d9003b_012.thumb.gif.0785384e89200

Type_90_main_battle_tank_heavy_tracked_a

911549113_92.jpg.c8a36832fde11faa7e7c7e2

 

  • Like 4
  • Upvote 12
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope too see this tank in game!!

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be quite welcome, and given how minor the changes are, all that is necessary for an appearance ingame would be documenting the differences in appearance rather than every detail.

 

I personally want to see the STC-2 or STC-4 as well, but it's difficult to gather data for those vehicles right now as I can't just go to Tokyo and take photos.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "problem" currently is, the Type 90 is stronger than the other its counterparts from the US and Germany. In exchange for having worse shells and a slower reload they get a better lineup. If the japanese now get an equal lineup, other nations will ask for equal shells like the M833 or the DM33. If we get into the next Gen of T6 tanks with the M1A1, Leo 2A4 (the actual one with C protection) and the T80U, sure, but for now it is at least kind of fine where it is. 

  • Confused 3
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, FaafVonFasslich said:

The "problem" currently is, the Type 90 is stronger than the other its counterparts from the US and Germany. In exchange for having worse shells and a slower reload they get a better lineup. If the japanese now get an equal lineup, other nations will ask for equal shells like the M833 or the DM33. If we get into the next Gen of T6 tanks with the M1A1, Leo 2A4 (the actual one with C protection) and the T80U, sure, but for now it is at least kind of fine where it is. 

 

You say yourself: "currently". I have addressed this in my post, more patches are coming, suggestions are not implemented right away. And as if other nations are not asking for M833 or DM33 already, so let us not twist the facts about "will ask", they do it now. Finally, I disagree that Type 90 is stronger than all mentioned counterparts; also addressed in the post concerning my T-80 experience, and I think my friend is doing much better in their IPM1 overall. 

 

If you think it is "fine", I really suggest getting it and playing. You have pen but the ballistics is questionable, so you have to be good at aiming. And if you have to be good at it anyway, might as well use much better ballistics soviet darts or HE for close combat. As long as gun breeches are breakable, 80% of engagements are decided by aim, ballistics and post-pen.

 

People misunderstand, in my opinion. You do not need a shell with big numbers, you need a shell that works in the meta. The winrate of current US lineups in RB is like the German lineup RB in 1.79. How did that happen, through M833? No, through CAS of all sorts and an extra M1 and lower spawn points, meaning outlasting the opposition. Current British, French and Japanese setups cannot significantly influence (in the hands of most players) the outcome of the long matches: you have to be uber-passive or spam backups every battle if you want to see its end (and again, spamming backups on T-64/80 combo gets you much much further). This has to change. (Current German lineup right now lacks CAS and perhaps even 2A5, that has to be changed, too.) 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

Edited by Functor
  • Like 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With playing the Type 90, I have found the JM33 round to be wholly useless. It has very inconsistent damage, penetration, and is very expensive. 

 

I always end up just using the JM12A1 HEATFS for its higher damage and reliability as well as being free. 

 

JM33 is not the round people say it is.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would be a really great addiction to Japan and expant the japanece army tree :kamikadze:

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/10/2018 at 18:14, Functor said:

 

You say yourself: "currently". I have addressed this in my post, more patches are coming, suggestions are not implemented right away. And as if other nations are not asking for M833 or DM33 already, so let us not twist the facts about "will ask", they do it now. Finally, I disagree that Type 90 is stronger than all mentioned counterparts; also addressed in the post concerning my T-80 experience, and I think my friend is doing much better in their IPM1 overall. 

 

If you think it is "fine", I really suggest getting it and playing. You have pen but the ballistics is questionable, so you have to be good at aiming. And if you have to be good at it anyway, might as well use much better ballistics soviet darts or HE for close combat. As long as gun breeches are breakable, 80% of engagements are decided by aim, ballistics and post-pen.

 

People misunderstand, in my opinion. You do not need a shell with big numbers, you need a shell that works in the meta. The winrate of current US lineups in RB is like the German lineup RB in 1.79. How did that happen, through M833? No, through CAS of all sorts and an extra M1 and lower spawn points, meaning outlasting the opposition. Current British, French and Japanese setups cannot significantly influence (in the hands of most players) the outcome of the long matches: you have to be uber-passive or spam backups every battle if you want to see its end (and again, spamming backups on T-64/80 combo gets you much much further). This has to change. (Current German lineup right now lacks CAS and perhaps even 2A5, that has to be changed, too.) 

 

"You say yourself: "currently". I have addressed this in my post, more patches are coming, suggestions are not implemented right away." Yes, but like other suggestions like the T80U I don´t see a reason for them being here yet. The devs proibably have their eyes on those vehicles already, they will introduce them when they think the game is ready.

 

"And as if other nations are not asking for M833 or DM33 already, so let us not twist the facts about "will ask", they do it now." Yes they do, what I mean by that is they RIGHTFULLY ask for those shells, my bad

 

"Finally, I disagree that Type 90 is stronger than all mentioned counterparts; also addressed in the post concerning my T-80 experience, and I think my friend is doing much better in their IPM1 overall. " I also loved the T80 on the dev server (waiting for the sale to buy it on the live server), but that doesn´t mean that the tank is better. Faster autoloader, more pen, better surviviability, etc..

 

"If you think it is "fine", I really suggest getting it and playing. You have pen but the ballistics is questionable, so you have to be good at aiming. And if you have to be good at it anyway, might as well use much better ballistics soviet darts or HE for close combat. As long as gun breeches are breakable, 80% of engagements are decided by aim, ballistics and post-pen."

 

The Type 90 round is 110 m/s slower, which isn´t that much, you might have a higher zoom, can´t seem to find the zoom for the Type 90 though. All top tier tanks are vournable near the gun breeches, some more (and the Type 90 counts to those) and some less. About post pen, that is a different problem discussed here: 

 

"How did that happen, through M833? No, through CAS of all sorts and an extra M1 and lower spawn points, meaning outlasting the opposition." But with the second Type 90, the japanese would have both advantages, a pretty good tank lineup and a highpen round. And as you have mentioned, tanks alone is not enough, CAS is important too. The Type 90 is very good in the early game, I have seen Type 90 /Leo 2 teams wipe the floor in the early game, even though it is harder now due to decreased spawn costs. I don´t see why all nations have to be equal. When you play japanese tank I don´t think you expect huge tank lineups, crushing the enemy. If you want to have that, play USA, Germany or the Soviets, the big tank nations. If you want to drive an outstanding tank though and are fine with having a smaller lineup, you play the French, the japanese or maybe the Brits. Those nations rarely had a big impact on the wins and losses of teams (with some exeptions), but there are some tanks that are a lot of fun to play.

 

"you have to be uber-passive or spam backups every battle if you want to see its end" or you use your high mobility, strike where the enemies don´t expect you or use your high pen to easily snapshot enemies headon.

 

"This has to change" And this is where I disagree and where I also belive that it never will change. Japan was and is a naval and aircraft nation (and when you look at their geography you see why). You probably won´t compete with the (I guess) 3 biggest tank producers in the world, no matter how hard you try. If you want a very good tank nation, choose an actual tank nation, if you want to have some fun, a challenge or want something new, the japanese are there for you. It won´t help the game if we have two Type 90s with JM33 in the game

 

Edited by FaafVonFasslich
  • Confused 3
  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"... even though it is harder now due to decreased spawn costs."

 

One of the points of the suggestion is that now things are very different. 

 

As for the last paragraph, I think many don't see things the way you see concerning competition in the game. Including the devs, who add prototypes and balance BRs according to statistics and not historically, for better or worse. They also fill trees with lots of almost identical tanks and prototypes, including the main trio of the nations. We even have XM-803. 

 

"It won´t help the game if we have two Type 90s with JM33 in the game"

 

I think it will, including supporting the developers --- more interest in Japan means more grind, meaning more GE and Premium time from the player base. For JM33, I can only reiterate what I said. We risk turning in circles here, so let's agree to disagree.

Edited by Functor
  • Like 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

id argue the modification is to minor too warrant a new tank even if that tanks purpose is to fill the line up a bit better.
maybe a prototype for the type 90 would be better but this is in my opinion such a minor change it has no business being in game as a separate tank.

  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, *TheLastYouSee__ said:

id argue the modification is to minor too warrant a new tank even if that tanks purpose is to fill the line up a bit better.
maybe a prototype for the type 90 would be better but this is in my opinion such a minor change it has no business being in game as a separate tank.

 

I would also be happier with a STC, but in the discussion thread quoted above, Smin said that they lack infos on STC to implement it in game.

 

Another option is to rework the in-game mechanics for RB. For example right now the Italian tanks have a right for 3 respawns. That would be too much to give three respawns to the top tier units of Japan/France/UK, but maybe an extra spawn would be not such a bad idea.

 

However France will feel much more comfortable once the Leclerc (prototypes included) arrive, and the UK can have its share of more Challengers and the Aussie M1A1 AIM (as German choppers show, the devs are still open to crossovers). Thus the suggestion is about solving the problem without making preferential RB rulesets. Mind the players will have to unlock the proposed Type 90 (B), meaning some grind and investment, something that the italian-like solution would not have.

 

Somewhat related: Japan has now its meme machine at tier 5. I have not invested in it yet; while it seems not totally useless, it is still not another top MBT.

Edited by Functor
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/11/2018 at 04:00, *TheLastYouSee__ said:

id argue the modification is to minor too warrant a new tank even if that tanks purpose is to fill the line up a bit better.
maybe a prototype for the type 90 would be better but this is in my opinion such a minor change it has no business being in game as a separate tank.

 

a bit like the T-34 1941 versus 1940, or M4 versus M4A2? Gaijin has not in the past been above filler vehicles, hell the M1 and M1IP are in practice just two of the same vehicle ingame given practically zero variance in playstyle and no practical thresholds overcome with any of the changes. In the context of real life there are probably enough differences between the Type 90 and 90B to warrant separate classification, ingame the Pz4 F2, Pz4G, and the Pz4H may be 1.0 BR apart, but their playstyles are so close I would argue they're interchangeable in any 4.3+ lineup, or you can just spam all 3. Much in the same fold, the Type 90B being similar to the Type 90 isn't sufficient justification to void its implementation.

Edited by Optical_Ilyushin
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/11/2018 at 09:44, Optical_Ilyushin said:

 

a bit like the T-34 1941 versus 1940, or M4 versus M4A2? Gaijin has not in the past been above filler vehicles, hell the M1 and M1IP are in practice just two of the same vehicle ingame given practically zero variance in playstyle and no practical thresholds overcome with any of the changes. In the context of real life there are probably enough differences between the Type 90 and 90B to warrant separate classification, ingame the Pz4 F2, Pz4G, and the Pz4H may be 1.0 BR apart, but their playstyles are so close I would argue they're interchangeable in any 4.3+ lineup, or you can just spam all 3. Much in the same fold, the Type 90B being similar to the Type 90 isn't sufficient justification to void its implementation.

This literally is just a Type 90 with 4 10mm plates and two mounting brackets added to the front of the vehicle. The IPM1 was a total re-design of the frontal turret protection of the vehicle, they are in no way comparable. To me This just seems like a copy and paste of the Type 90.

 

At most this could be a armor package upgrade for the existing Type 90, but the actual additional protection it offers is so minor it may not even be useful. (do you really want to sink a additional 25k rp into a more or less useless armor add on?)

 

Also stating that tanks should be differentiated by their play styles is post productive, in the end high tier RB is Go karts with guns that can one shot you across the map if you shot a bit of your side. Similar tanks within a line should play the same because they are similar in construction.

All the 76 Shermans play similarly, and that is OK? But the M1 and IPM1 are not, even though the M1 and IPM1 have more overall differences than the sherman 76 line?

 

The difference between the Panzer 4 family is that each have radically different armor packages, ranging from nothing at the F2 to full Schürzen and track applique on the H. The Type 90B in comparison to the in game Type 90 would again, only add 6 items to the tank, 4 of which add practically non existent armor to the vehicle, and the other two are just for show. (it in the end would be more of a cosmetic change rather than a actual upgrade)

 

In the end we have other options to expand Japanese high tier, this tank really just feels like a stretch to become a totally new tank in the line. Preferably the IFVs and new Wheeled TDs of Japan would fill this niche rather well as of now, but in my own opinion, a pseudo duplication tank is just really a stopgap measure and just unnecessary.

 

 

Edited by Lolman345
  • Confused 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/11/2018 at 12:00, *TheLastYouSee__ said:

id argue the modification is to minor too warrant a new tank even if that tanks purpose is to fill the line up a bit better.
maybe a prototype for the type 90 would be better but this is in my opinion such a minor change it has no business being in game as a separate tank.

You mean stuff like STC-1 where no one  has any information let alone a complete document on this vehicle ? The Type 90 in the game is a delusional tank, a mix between the production and prototype because while the model and performance are of Type 90 late, the armor layout is   from a tank didn't enter  service and served as a display piece in a museum.  LMAO

And while this is basically Type 90 with some extra steel slapped onto the front plate is still better than to always spending gold to buy backup for the Type 90 so i can come back in a 10.0 vehicle again after i die, but for nation like US they can just come back with another Abrams...

Edited by I_NAMELESS_I
medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 05/11/2018 at 16:44, Optical_Ilyushin said:

a bit like the T-34 1941 versus 1940, or M4 versus M4A2? Gaijin has not in the past been above filler vehicles, hell the M1 and M1IP are in practice just two of the same vehicle ingame given practically zero variance in playstyle and no practical thresholds overcome with any of the changes. In the context of real life there are probably enough differences between the Type 90 and 90B to warrant separate classification, ingame the Pz4 F2, Pz4G, and the Pz4H may be 1.0 BR apart, but their playstyles are so close I would argue they're interchangeable in any 4.3+ lineup, or you can just spam all 3. Much in the same fold, the Type 90B being similar to the Type 90 isn't sufficient justification to void its implementation.

the difference between the vehicles you mentioned are far larger then between the type 90 and the Type 90 B. from T-34 1940 to 1941 you get a pretty substantial increase in firepower. from M4 to M4A2 you get a decent increase in protection. the M1IP has a far better turret then the M1, as for the panzer 4s the G gets increased armour over the F2 and the H gets schurzen and an improved gun. there is a differnce between the playstyle being similar and the vehicle being more or less the same baring some additional equipment to mount a mine roller that wont be in game. 

13 hours ago, wulfalier said:

For STC we dont have enough info,Type 87 IFV will be next,copy paste Type 90 is bad,then the only option is Type 16 or Type 10

the type 10 and the type 16 might be a bit to modern and due to them being so modern it would not be possible to justify them having ammunition that will not absolutely destroy every vehicle in game.
and the armour on the type 10 might be even more complex to estimate. maybe japan could just get 2 spawns in the type 90 to be on par with the M1 and M1IP combo and the 2A4 and 2K combo.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, *TheLastYouSee__ said:

the difference between the vehicles you mentioned are far larger then between the type 90 and the Type 90 B. from T-34 1940 to 1941 you get a pretty substantial increase in firepower. from M4 to M4A2 you get a decent increase in protection. the M1IP has a far better turret then the M1, as for the panzer 4s the G gets increased armour over the F2 and the H gets schurzen and an improved gun. there is a differnce between the playstyle being similar and the vehicle being more or less the same baring some additional equipment to mount a mine roller that wont be in game. 

the type 10 and the type 16 might be a bit to modern and due to them being so modern it would not be possible to justify them having ammunition that will not absolutely destroy every vehicle in game.
and the armour on the type 10 might be even more complex to estimate. maybe japan could just get 2 spawns in the type 90 to be on par with the M1 and M1IP combo and the 2A4 and 2K combo.

And how would that be fair to those who choose to play other nations? They have to research over 600,000 rp for a pair of top tier vehicles when Japan gets to access a vehicle with a free backup every match for half the RP cost? 

Edited by Miki_Hoshii
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, *TheLastYouSee__ said:

the type 10 and the type 16 might be a bit to modern and due to them being so modern it would not be possible to justify them having ammunition that will not absolutely destroy every vehicle in game.
and the armour on the type 10 might be even more complex to estimate. maybe japan could just get 2 spawns in the type 90 to be on par with the M1 and M1IP combo and the 2A4 and 2K combo.

Copy paste armor from 2A5 and give it to Type 10(the same like with Type 90),Type 16 immune to some HEAT shells but weak against 25 or 35mm guns,ammo give it only JM33(because it can shoot them) and for Type 16 same shells as Type 74.

medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, wulfalier said:

Copy paste armor from 2A5 and give it to Type 10(the same like with Type 90),Type 16 immune to some HEAT shells but weak against 25 or 35mm guns,ammo give it only JM33(because it can shoot them) and for Type 16 same shells as Type 74.

Sure if Russia gets a T-90A with the 3BM22. US could get an M1A2 with the M829 while we're at it. Germany? Hello Leopard 2A5 with DM23.

I'm against giving high level tank lesser ammunition just to bring them into the current game. Those tanks, including a Type 10 with JM-33, would destroy 9.0-10.0. 

Edited by WulfPack
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering this tank is functionally identical to the Type 90 in-game save for a negligible LFP buff, why not just give the current type 90 a second respawn in RB and AB? A built in backup vehicle basically, (3 spawns with additional purchased backup vehicle). Save the grind and annoyance to get what is really the exact same tank you already have. Even the M1/M1IP have differences that are meaningful in game. This would be like making two tanks for a vehicle with add-on track armor, one with and one without. Remember, the Italians already have a multiple respawns/vehicle mechanic so its not unheard of, and here it would be very useful.

 

If a total copy paste top tier tank is added it may be fine for now, but the moment power creep advances a bit more it will be nothing but an extra grind or at best a "hangar decorator". If an additional re-spawn is granted instead, it can simply be removed once the top tier meta shifts away from the vehicle (or not, depending on the state of the game). If minefields are added to the game, this mine sweeping apparatus could be an unlock able module.

 

The OP's idea works too, I just think that an additional spawn for the existing type-90 is a more future-friendly solution to the short term problems Japan is having.

medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, WulfPack said:

Sure if Russia gets a T-90A with the 3BM22. US could get an M1A2 with the M829 while we're at it. Germany? Hello Leopard 2A5 with DM23.

T90A with 3BM22? M1A2 with m828 leo2a5 with DM23?  Typo? Give it the DM53 it had on April fools and the 3BM46 the T90A had aswell.. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, *WhitePhospourous said:

T90A with 3BM22? M1A2 with m828 leo2a5 with DM23?  Typo? Give it the DM53 it had on April fools and the 3BM46 the T90A had aswell.. 

He suggested bringing in the Type 10 with the Type 90's ammo selection. Point was to do the same with them.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.