Ki-43-III Otsu should go down. It was good at 4.0 back when it had the 1500hp engine, but you can’t seriously argue that losing 400hp isn’t worthy of any BR change. At the same BR you meet Eminem’s Yak3.
Belongs at 2.7 due to horrible instructor and long. stability.
Ki-44-I is perfectly balanced.
They were already mid to bad at 6.0 before they got nerfed and got heavier. LF Mk9 can easily outturn, outclimb, and even outspeed the N1K2-Js, with the ONLY downside being that it only gets two of the best 20mm in the game.
Except the LF Mk9 has no less than 2 premium versions and is one of the most spammed aircraft at its BR since its known for being a metamobile. Same with the Yak-3U, it is known for being very strong and is one of the most played aircraft at that BR - but its pilots have NO IDEA how to use it effectively.
BRs are, most of the time, effectively inverse of how many people play that vehicle.
in fact, according to Statshark right now, the J7W has better Kill Per Spawn and Per Death stats than the american premium LF Mk9!
It has no business at 6.0.
It has very good ergonomics (easy to play) and that’s it.
As usual the average players make basically anything that can turn well n has cannons look insane.
N1K2 suffers from the same issue as the Re.2005 legacy BR combined with lack of awareness and basic understanding of the game on the enemy’s end and good armament. F4U-1C and almost all zeroes are another prime examples.
It’s essentially a 4.3-4.7 aircraft performance on paper that has very good ergonomics and cannons.
Could be 5.0-5.3 since it would scare your average player but shouldn’t be higher than that tbh.
The N1K2-J finally does something better! …except the LF can just turn less and probably still come out on top. It also just outright wins at low speed, with both better turn rate and the same or better ability to spiral upwards.
Note that where the lines intersect with the 0 m/s SEP horizontal line is where both planes will sustain a flat turn at sea level with WEP.
TL;DR: the LF has better acceleration at ALL speeds. It climbs, accelerates, and sprints better. It also turns better at every speed, and they have nearly identical IAS limits so the N1K2-J can’t dive away. The LF will also find it much easier to ‘stick’ to someone since it bleeds more speed in turns, and this isn’t really a downside otherwise since its acceleration is so much better.
Such are the benefits of having a fictional wunderwaffe flight model.
I mean, I wouldn’t complain if it went down. I play it a fair bit and haven’t felt like it struggles even post engine nerf though.
at 2.7? I duunno, it climbs like a 4.0, dives just as fast, and still out turns most stuff it faces. It only really suffers from the fact gets floppy in a roll and doesn’t like rolling upside down, which they both suffer from. I don’t think 3.0 is unfair
How do you get this information? I genuinely spent an hour googling for stats last night but couldn’t find anything for direct comparisons.
hence why a lot of my opinions, I do admit, are based on feelings and personal experience from physically flying them. Its so hard to directly compare all of the little intricacies that make a plane perform better or worse, so my solution has always been to just fly the aircraft and see how they actually compare in game, and sort of test things with my face, getting shot down and noting “okay, this plane can’t out turn that plane”, with general trial and error of fighting other aircraft. So with that in mind, I have flown a hefty number of aircraft at that BR range can at least say I have a fair understanding of where they suffer, and where they excel in gameplay. Its not really scientific, But I don’t think pure scientific data can tell the whole story by itself either. I can’t argue its somewhat of a weak argument in the scheme of things. Probably be better to compare to some 5.0-5.3 aircraft and see how it stacks up.
I’ve never felt “scared” of fighting a Mk9 Spit in an N1K2, and it absolutely craps all over the Yak9U as well. Yak3s I have no arguments about, ALL of the Yak3s deserve to go up by at least 0.7 with their current flight models, maybe even a full 1.0.
As it is, I am a Japan main. I’m Arguing against buffing some of my favourite aircraft to fly here. I enjoy the N1K2s. Its purely a benefit to me if they go down at all, especially sub 5.0. But I am fully confident that they’d be broken OP at that BR. Hence why I’m sticking to my 5.7 opinion. maybe 5.3 at a stretch.
It was a night and day change. I had almost earned a free ace crew when the nerf came, and after that it was completely neutered. Climb rate, sustained turn rate, any ability to keep maneuvering - all gone overnight. It was worthy of 4.0 before, but now it plays almost like a -II if it had Ho-5s
If the Ki-44s didn’t have the weird handling they do and didn’t speedrun losing all their speed in any turn, it might have been fine there. But it lacks a bit of everything when much better aircraft like the 109 E-4 and Yak-1B are at 3.0.
The floppiness in rolls and generally subpar nose authority are also 99% of my issues with the Ki-43-II, except that one has it so much worse. It desperately needs a new FM and an updated 3D model. I was flying right behind a (chinese) Ki-61 the other day trying to shoot him and the nose was literally flopping all over the place.
This is WTRTI. It pulls data from localhost:8111 (which WT itself always has available) and uses the stats there, plus some very clever math to calculate many others.
By using the logging function, you can record any stats you add to your monitoring list and they’ll be recorded into a .CSV file, which you can open and visualize with the built-in graph tool. Which is what I used.
This allows you to get accurate data from the game itself, without having to rely on potentially outdated spreadsheets, like the “WT Sustained Turn rates (WIP)” sheet - that one still has the Ki-43-III Otsu with the old engine, which had a sustained turn rate slightly higher than A7M1 or LF Mk9. Needless to say, that’s not the case anymore.
I used to also do that, but once I started using WTRTI I noticed just how much outright wrong information there is going around.
I might do that, though I haven’t researched many nations so there’s a limited number of comparisons I can make.
I don’t feel scared when fighting those because I know they attract incredibly bad pilots. Pretty much all the metamobiles are like this - think about how aircraft like the XP-50 or Su-11 stay(ed) at their BRs for YEARS despite being far above their competition, while fighting them was only challenging because of the plane itself. Only somewhat recently have they lost the airspawn and went up by a single step respectively. The J2M2 also went from 4.3 to 5.0 in two consecutive BR changes IIRC, I believe this indicates many players of these vehicles have moved on to something else.
But the 5.7 metamobiles are in a special place. They obviously can’t meet the 7.0 jets, there’s very few 6.7 fighters to get uptiered into, the 6.3s and 6.0s don’t really pose much of a threat. So it’s an ever-popular BR, and the F4U-4B even went down to 5.7 not that long ago.
I used to enjoy the N1K2-Js, until they increased their weight. The difference was immediately obvious and it has just ruined them for me. I don’t really play them now.
I am making the comparison to the N1K1-J right now. I believe that one both turns and climbs better.
EDIT: actually, it wasn’t just the weight change that made me stop playing them. The automatic flap update was also terrible since they do not deploy until well below their speed limits, and you can no longer get one or two REALLY good turns in to just kill someone.
The N1K1-J is already 5.3 and not amazing there, so this makes for a perfect comparison. Both are very similar, they handle identically, use the same engine* and even have almost identical armament, with the N1K2s doubling the ammo capacity.
N1K1-J has slightly better sustained turn rate (~3.3G vs 4G, not HUGE but not nothing either, it WILL consistently win a turn fight) thanks to maintaining a higher speed. It has better retention at almost every speed.
The N1K1-J also accelerates faster at sea level (more on that in a bit) and will climb faster. The N1K2-J overtakes it from just under 400kph but it’s playing catchup. Speed difference at low altitude is smaller than you’d think, only about 30kph and both planes are SLOW for these BRs.
The N1K1-J has the advantage all the way from 2500m up, and it’s an almost constant 100hp extra it has to play with. Bear in mind that down at sea level it already had better retention and turned just as hard, at higher altitudes it will be just straight up better.
This alone makes the N1K1-J actually worth playing at 5.3 (it really belongs at 5.0) so please do not bug report it lol. Funnily enough it’s quite a bit newer to the game than the N1K2, so who knows what gaijin was cooking.
At 6500m it’s 611kph vs 642kph. The N1K2s are still faster but 30kph is not enough to offset the climb rate and maneuvering advantages the N1K1s have.
I might do time to altitude tomorrow, but it’s frankly not necessary to know the N1K1-J is gonna get to any given altitude sooner and it’d be only useful to see just how big the difference is. It is not some 5.3 metamobile that can wipe entire teams, it’s just an average, decent fighter. And yet, the only things it loses to the N1K2-Js at 6.0 are a marginal top speed disadvantage (the N1K2-Js also run hotter so that’s not even gonna stay true for very long) and less ammo for the exact same guns. It’s better or equal at everything else.
4.7 is probably too much, but 5.3 is more than balanced. If I really wanted to embarass this plane I’d put the A7M2, LF Mk9, or Yak-3U (if I had it) in the comparison. Or even the J2Ms and Ki-84s which probably do come out on top still.
When was the engine change? I’ve played it for quite a while and honestly dont remember it. Granted these days I play it almost exclusively in GRB, where it completely dominates. But I do remember a while back a very specific game with me in a Bf109 G-6 fighting a 1v1 with a Ki-43 Otsu, and I tried to out climb him and get him when his engine lost power at altitude, and IIRC I got to like ~7km with him still keeping up with me in a sustained power climb. I was outstanded at that. So that must have been the pre nerf engine.
I know Im going back to feeling here again, but honestly I’ve not felt like the issues really mattered with the Ki-44s, I haven’t really felt either of them lose noticeably more speed in a turn than contemporaries, and honestly feel a bit dirty flying them because I know I have an absolute advantage over almost everything else they’d fight. (Especially the Hei)
Thanks. It honestly kinda sucks that you have to do all this stuff manually and only if you have the plane unlocked and can fly it. There really needs to be some sort of actual database with this sort of info avalible - For example World of Tanks has Tanks.gg which provide detailed stats of every vehicle in that game, armour models, and ability to directly compare.
Everything in War thunder being all secretive and hidden and needing to do in depth research or testing is super annoying when discussing these sorts of comparisons.
When there is no easily accessible, concrete information to go off of, things like that is what happens. The best way I’ve ever been able to compare is just to see how they do in an actual battle, put them in a dogfight against each other, and (average player skill permitting) Putting myself into different situations to see where I lose and where I win.
When was this change? The last change I remember them getting was Gaijin removing the 4x 250kg Bomb loadouts from them. I actually spaded them both originally when they had this loadout, and had only just spaded them when they removed the 2 extra bombs. Was the weight nerf before or after this? If after then I played most of my games in them pre nerf, otherwise I’ve only ever flown them after the weight nerf.
This whole post is insane to me lol
when I flew the N1k1, I didn’t like it too much. It definitely felt heavy and bloated a bit sluggish, and the N1K2s just did not after researching those. Night and day difference.
to see stats like that is a solid WTF moment. Honestly more than any other arguments in this thread, this has made me rethink my opinion the most. I thought the N1K1 was fine at 5.3.
Yak-3U is a straight up UFO that deserves to be at 6.7. Personally I count it as a stupid outlier that shouldn’t be taken into real comparisons between performance level.
Ki-84s are faster in almost all cases, though N1K2 turns better. I never actually really liked the A7M2 much, its guns are placed too far out in the wings was my main issue. (which is another thing that “feelings” get that pure stats don’t really show I guess)
Happened years ago, I’d have to look through the changelogs to find it.
I might throw them into some test flights later, though this isn’t the topic for it.
Well, there are attempts at doing it. A user in Wingaling’s Team Sim discord has made wtapc.org, but actually attempting to accurately simulate all of these things for props has proven to be extremely difficult, so only two metrics are available (power and power to weight).
There’s also statshark.net/ but they only include jets and it’s not 100% accurate.
Even putting the tests I do into a ‘database’ of sorts wouldn’t be a great idea, since there’s changes to many aircraft very often which aren’t included in the changelogs. It would be outdated VERY fast.
This isn’t a terrible way to go about it, but without being able to standardize your opponents it’s hard to make sense of things.
When the japanese premium 109 was mistakenly lowered to 2.3 I actually thought it got worse since you still outclimbed 99% of your enemies anyway, but now being able to dogfight them was much rarer since the lower tier planes tended to be slower and better-turning. You essentially lost half of your options despite being super OP.
Happened in patch 2.37, if I remember it right. Another 300kg or so added to their empty weights. I don’t know when they added automatic flaps, but that killed my playstyle.
I think this is because your opponents changed. At 5.3 you’d see planes that are slower and will find it much easier to pull into, and stay behind you even if they don’t actually turn better.
I do quite like the N1K1-J, and I’ve been considering writing a suggestion for a version without gunpods:
Which HOPEFULLY gets a lower BR and then I’ll be able to truly enjoy a Shiden.
I am once again going to ruin your day. Though yes, they are much faster, and to my knowledge they didn’t get automatic flaps so you can still pull them out whenever you want.
The A7M2 is one of my favorites. Has absolutely HUGE wings that grant it some unbelievable turn performance even well above its comfort altitudes. Also just as fast down low as the N1K2-Js. Armament is fine, though I wish there was a variant with the 4x 20mm armament the ‘new build’ A7M2s had, instead of the mixed configuration from the A7M1 conversions. Also A7M3 pls.
I swear to god when I was playing the N1K2s they felt almost like higher BR Zeros, I was turnfighting everything and even matching Spitfires.
And this is probably why. I spaded them before this patch, at least a year before actually. Ive only played them sporadically since, and mostly in GRB to be fair.
Therefore almost all my experience is clearly outdated. I wonder what those graphs would have looked like pre nerf…
I must consider myself thoroughly defeated at this point.
They were pretty damn great pre-nerf, they quickly became one of my favorite fighters in the game. Certainly my favorite for that BR.
I wasn’t doing these graphs back then so I can’t know for sure unless I did a custom mission with a custom N1K2-J set to its old weight. But you can just imagine that it is carrying a 250kg bomb it can’t drop, it’s a pretty big penalty. I’d guess it would be superior to the N1K1-J in all those graphs without the extra weight, since that is what causes the lower climb rate and energy retention.
Also, that’s another nail in the coffin for it being at 6.0. It was nerfed pretty heavily considering it was far from the best performer at 6.0, staying there makes no sense.
With excellent rudder, aileron effectiveness and ammo load, this thing serves very well as a platform to spary 4x992 under mouse-keyboard mode. Using snap rolls you can reverse ppl and its fun to play even at a broken BR. Performance definitely lacking, especially after weight adjustment to 4000kg when fully loaded. Would like to see it at 5.3 with more ppl play it.
Its performance is one of the most accurate compared IRL, but with problems in game include:
-N1K2 has no separate fuel tank, fuel equally spread over all fuel cells, made it flammable. (N1K1 has no such problem)
-N1K2 fuel tank hp lacking, though with fire chance of common self-sealing fuel tank, low hp value makes it vulnerable. They should swap the fuel tank DM values between ki-84 and N1K2, where it was assigned with a fuel fire chance closer to a nitrogen inerted fuel tank.
-Combat flaps should be operable up to 250Knots.
Shuffling BRs will not change anything regarding balance, unless the playerbase is forced to go through mandatory training before flying planes. Without that, the only factors affecting BR will be ‘ease of use’ and ‘gun burst mass’, to accommodate the average WT player.
Have you ever tried getting enemy props to a low speed fight? You will quickly see the strengths the N1Ks bring to the table. But you must create those situations first. There are ways to do so.
As for the jets, they are your jet teammate’s responsibilities. You’re in a team fight, after all.
Time to defend the Ki-43s.
Floppiness and nose authority can be dealt with using keyboard inputs. The plane is perfectly well usable, and so are other planes that have higher controllability skill floors.
It is still worthy of 4.0, and compared with -II it has significantly higher climb, top speed, and dive rip speed, and you already mentioned the guns. I feel right at home at 4.0 when I fly the -III. Very often I find myself higher than the rest of the enemy team after climbing, and the few that manage to outclimb me are dealt with using reversals.
On this, it is not the plane’s inherent quality, and calling it a matter of skill floor is a misnomer in my opinion.
I havn’t really flown Ki-43 in RB after flying it in SB, but I did try my Mustang Mk Ia/P-51 after using it to great effect with Full-real controls.
The way the cannon mustangs handle in RB versus sim is night and day.
F8U, while I’m not really a jet player, demonstrates a similar quality - with mouse aim instructor it flops around like some drunken dolphin while it flies like a charm with stick and rudder full real controls.
I havnt flown G.55 sottoserie 0 in RB, but I’ve seen videos and read complaints about its energy wastage in verticals that are alien to my SB experience.
For whatever reason, the way instructor is set up for certain aircraft fails to adequately use rudder to coordinate turns and fails to execute the proper order of operations to turn or maneuver. These planes often start their turns with excess rudder causing them to skid and slip and bleed all their speed while flopping around. In case of G.55, it experiences pretty massive left-turning tendencies when rapidly pitching so requires careful rudder in vertical fights that RB instructor does not seem to care about either.
I think the instructor for such planes should be adjusted to better approximate proper flying, after all - isn’t that the point of mouse aim?
The issue with the instructor on the Ki-43-II (specifically this variant), is that it goes into rolls so fast, that the instructor starts overcompensating for it’s own adjustments, causing aiming to be “wobbly”. By guiding the instructor with keyboard inputs, the plane becomes much more controllable, not to mention the better turn resulting from using keyboard pitch inputs.
It really isn’t an inherent quality, but under the context of ARB, it does become part of the plane’s qualities.
I call these controllability issues a skill floor because if you spend time learning how to deal with them, you are rewarded with better performance, whereas if you don’t, you get something not as usable as your usual plane. You have to spend a minimum amount of effort to learn how to use these kinds of planes, compared to other “regular” planes, hence the skill floor requirement being higher.
If you play fighting games, think of puppet characters vs shoto characters.
I usually think that effort expended to learn how to use something should be rewarded, like how MEC can give benefits over using AEC.
In another example, I enjoyed learning all the limits the F4D had in terms of wing ripping, ended up using the plane to great effect, but then an update made most wing ripping nigh impossible, which is sad to see. I don’t get to use the knowledge I obtained any longer.
Your view of ARB is quite simulator player centric, and is hard to find fault in, but in the view of a video game player, I would rather see effort be rewarded. Because of the instructor, I can’t help but see ARB as video gamey, compared with SB, so I tend to not treat ARB as being SB with easy controls. I view ARB as Ace Combat with realistic physics.
I think neither view is wrong, but they do set different expectations for ARB.
But why would you play the N1K2s to do this when the A7M, Ki-84, J2M all do it better? And at lower BRs?
If anything, it gets worse with keyboard inputs. The -IIs handle NOTHING like the -I or -III, with those you can react very well to an enemy who is actively dodging you, while the -II will be too busy snaking around and making terrible use of its rudder.
You can see here that when I manually roll using the keyboard the reticle takes a HUGE arc around the enemy plane (and then wobbles side to side because the instructor has no idea whatsoever how to use the rudder), which I KNOW the Ki-43-I certainly doesn’t do, and the -III usually doesn’t either. The -II has very poor directional stability and it comes off in Sim as well.
Ki-44s LOVE doing it too.
If people do not climb, that is their fault.
IAS limit is the same, 661kph. Mach limit is the same at 0.65.
The -III is faster at sea level, but it runs much hotter. By 6km the -II isn’t reaching its statcard top speed, the -III eventually gets close enough after you burn away all your very limited ADI. Difference is within 50kph at all altitudes.
Ki-44-II for reference, which was a slightly older test where I chose the runway spawn instead. It is better, but not 4.0 better. If you meet competent enemies you WILL get outclimbed and that’s not a huge upgrade over the -II in any case (which given how it fell so far below its statcard top speed it might have too much drag).
You cannot argue that a plane which has lost 1/4 of its engine power shouldn’t be moved in BR at all.
This isn’t a problem with the instructor. Fly a straight line and roll with keyboard. You will see the instructor doesn’t kick in, but the plane snaps over after 3/4 roll every single time. This becomes worse the slower you fly. That’s simply a bad coded roll behaviour.
