A few of those destroyer classes are pretty similar to each other and don’t offer anything new. Also, I wouldn’t list a landing ship, that’s a bit misleading since it has no place in WT whatsoever. And why did you list the classes already in WT? But yes, I think the Takao class are long overdue
This is War Thunder, having something historical that’s “pretty similar” simply because that thing is cool is the bread and butter of this game and its several thousand vehicle options. Having at least one of every class is the minimum I’d consider to be a fully fleshed out tech tree.
One could just as easily claim we don’t “need” a Takao because we have a Myoukou. :P
Erm, all of these questions are clearly explained in the comment? It’s a list of everything that appears in the film, with emphasis on both what is and what isn’t in the game yet; I even added a caveat to the landing ship and cargo ship to make it clear they’re not being suggested for WT.
It’s a recent, popular, and period/setting-relevant film for WT and this topic especially, I’m sure many people here have seen it. There aren’t many films/shows/games/etc which meaningfully feature WWII-era Japanese ships, certainly not with the focus and detail we see here; it makes for a good conversation starter for these.
2 Likes
Well on the note of having similar classes of ships, can we get the Fubuki-class ships with their different sub-classes. We have Ayanami already (which I think should be a later fit of her armament instead of the current one), but there’s another 2 sub classes within the Fubuki class that could be nice as premiums or early fit like Ayanami currently is, and at a lower BR.
This is War Thunder, having something historical that’s “pretty similar” simply because that thing is cool is the bread and butter of this game and its several thousand vehicle options. Having at least one of every class is the minimum I’d consider to be a fully fleshed out tech tree.
One could just as easily claim we don’t “need” a Takao because we have a Myoukou. :P
Not to be pedantic, but The Myoko and Takao are completely different ship designs. Whereas most of the Japanese fleet destroyers are minor iterations on the class preceding it.
Also, I just misinterpreted what you said, I thought you meant everything in the film should be in WT.
The Takaos/Myoukous are slightly more different than some of the destroyers compared to each other, though in the context of WT stats/values/etc they’re still extremely similar. The Fubukis through the Yuugumos are definitely rather iterative, yes.
The other two would be the base Fubuki class, and the Akatsuki (sub)class which followed the Ayanami (sub)class. A standard Fubuki-class definitely deserves inclusion, ideally Fubuki herself; this class was the first of all modern (as in '30s/'40s) destroyers, a massive design change from the world’s previous designs, not dissimilar to what the FT was for tanks.
3 Likes
One of my favorite cruisers got passed!
1 Like
Anyone have any new info on the Mutsu?
Her 16.1’’ is like boast. Title of 16.1’’ is good but when looking at its spec… I’ll prefer 14’’ Type 91 APC
1 Like
I want someone to make a proposal for Tosa, a Kaga-class battleship, and I want to see her fight.
I think Amagi, which was demolished due to the earthquake and could not be repaired, is also eligible to participate in this game.
5 Likes
I was going to say somebody already has, but it appears that it hasn’t been transferred over to current forum.
I think it WAS passed to developers at one point however.
Made the suggestion just waiting for it to pass now :)
1 Like
Those are some lovely photos! The requirement for WT is having been laid down, so Japan (like most nations) could get several ships that were planned for what became the treaty era. They’d all be nice to see, both to fill up the tree and to lessen the tech/design jump from WWI designs to 1930s designs.
This is what we have left for post-WWI capital ships:
- Kongou-class (2)
- Nagato-class (1)
- Kaga-class (2)
- Amagi-class (4)
- Kii-class (2)
- Yamato-class (4)
3 Likes
They were Kaga-class per Japanese classification.
2 Likes
Kind of weird they put Mutsu after Kongo…Amagi would if went way better after Kongo…with Mutsu being better after Fuso or Ise.
4 Likes
I’m pretty sure they only did it because Mutsu has 4 turrets and Kongo has 4 turrets.
Thing look like other thing type situation. Hopefully they change it because now the tree progression is just in tatters.
4 Likes
Huh, so they were. I do my best to be aware of these bizarrely common cases where English-speaking historians decide to change foreign class names, but this had somehow flown under my radar. They were even numbered in this order.
Yeah, this surprises me too, she’s very out of place there; hopefully it’s fixed.
1 Like
1 Like
Is the Mutsu armor modeled correctly?
I saw an opinion on the Japan wiki that the armor between the fuel tanks and engine room is not modeled as hull armor.
You mean blue one? Isn’t it High tensile steel? Almost every ship has its High tensile steel not treated as ‘armor’ but structual steel. And structual steel is treated as 0.4 RHA, so it is at least work as some shell or fragmentation stopping thing.
1 Like
Not really. For American ships in game, “high-strength steel” is “anti-fragmentation armor”, and thick castings made of steel of the same grade are even “homogeneous armor”.