N1K2 NEEDS to be at a lower BR

Who’s qouting stat cards?

Their flight performance is equal to 4.7’s and 5.0’s, the reason why you don’t feel like they’re underperforming is because your average opponent couldn’t pour water out of a shoe if the instructions were written on the heel.

Those are massively over tiered aircraft, so the comparison is already skewed.

Compare the N1K2 to a Spitfire LF Mk IX, Yak-3U, BF 109K-4 or VK-107 and you’ll see how the N1K2’s flight performance doesn’t even come close to any of those aircraft.

1 Like

Welcome to the entire Japanese tech tree, please enjoy your constant BR increases

its more about turnfighting turnfighters while not using your energy as energy fighter…

It definitely not that low, its closer to 5.7s realistically. As for the other part, thats true for all planes in the game.

The A6M5s are definitely overtiered, but even those aren’t really worth any lower than 4.7. the N1K2s are much stronger.

I’ve flown quite a bit in all the other aircraft you mentioned there except the VK-107, and honestly the only one that N1K2 doesn’t stack up to is the Yak3U, but that’s because Yak3s in general are literal UFOs that I am 99% sure have complete fantasy flight models.

As I said, I definitely think it could drop down to 5.7, but I don’t think it needs to go much lower.

in general the left prop lane feels overtiered(a7m is for example an exception). the ki lane has a few undertiered planes like the ki43´s. the middle lane has both (overtiered and undertiered, tbf the j7w1 will always be quite bad in performance).

the A6M5s definitely are all overtiered by at least 0.3, you could argue 0.7 IMO. The A6M3 Mod22s are both overtiered (the Mod 22 Ko by 0.7, that thing has no reason to be above 4.3). I think the Base A6M3 and the A6M2s are fine honestly, they Match the Spitfire Mk2b.

The Ki-43-III is fine at 4.0 IMO, the Ki-43-II Could prob go up to 3.0, the first one is fine. The Ki-61s could probably all drop by 0.3 because they all honestly kinda suck.

Both Ki-44s should probably go up by 0.3 because they are insanely strong

Ki-84 Hei could prob go down to 6.0 and be fine, the J7W needs to drop by a full 1.0 IMO, god that thing is awful.

And as I mentioned before, the N1K2s could probably drop down by 0.3.

The Rest I think are mostly fine currently.

Just for reference, I’ve spaded the entire japanese tech tree, except some of the latest jets (some of the Thai ones I haven’t spaded yet, and I only just unlocked the F2-A today, everything else is spaded). So I definitely have experience flying these planes.

BR, Speed @ 700m, 5000m, climb rate, turn time:

6.0 N1K2-Ja - 556 km/h - 622 km/h - 22.1 m/s - 15:71s
5.7 Yak-3U ---- 627 km/h - 672 km/h - 22.9 m/s - 14:94s
5.7 LF Mk IX - 585 km/h - 648 km/h - 25.5 m/s - 12:90s

No it’s not, that’s the whole point of the N1K2-Ja getting punished so hard simply for getting to feast on terrible players consistently.

If we take player skill out of the equation, the N1K2-Ja’s flight performance is objectively and factually 4.7 - 5.0 worthy.

You can disagree with that based on how it ‘‘feels’’, but it doesn’t change the fact that the hard data of it’s flight performance is most closely matched by plenty of other aircraft sitting at 4.7 - 5.0.

A 4.7 Yak-9U has superior flight performance as well.

I know it’s not going to go lower because it’s a crap aircraft that’s feasting on clueless opponents. As long as it’s opponents are bad, it’s not going to go anywhere.

On the other end of the spectrum you’ve got the F4U-1a which is grossly over powered but won’t go up in BR because it’s average pilot hasn’t even figured out that there’s a ‘Freelook’ button to use.

1 Like

that doesn’t tell the whole story. Plus the stat cards especially are never accurate comparisons

But they literally don’t. And again, if they get to do it, then other, much stronger planes at the same BR would do it even harder.

Its objectively and factually not.

Your argument is more based on feelings than mine here. Its been at 6.0 for like… 5+ years now.

Again, If this was the case, the Spitfire LF Mk9 which you say is much stronger would be feasting on these same players even harder, and with that logic should go up. But it hasn’t. its sat at 5.7 for… literally forever. Side note, the (American Premium) LF Mk 9 spit is my 2nd most flown aircraft in the game, after the A6M5 Ko. I DEFINITELY have a good idea of how that thing flies.

Yes some of the Big 3s aircraft are undertiered due to bad player syndrome. and yes some of Japans planes are overtiered due to Japan not usually being picked as a first nation to play.

But, I just played a game in the N1K2 Ja, it was a 6.7 game and frankly, I had no problem matching or beating the climb of all the other planes on my team, and in both turn rates, dive rates, and energy retention I was hanging it just fine even with the 6.7 Mk24 Spits I was fighting, and ended the game with 3 kills.

So again, 5.7 yes, lower? heck no.

For the second time now: I’m not quoting meaningless stat cards, I’m quoting the actual figures.

Stronger planes in other tech trees are being used by less skilled players.

So tell me, what’s the climb rates, turn performance, speed at low altitude, high altitude, energy retention, etc. of a Yak-9U and a N1K2-Ja.

If you disagree with me based on hard data, I’m sure you’ll be able to share your data which doesn’t align with mine, right?

I’m the one providing flight performance data, you’re providing: ‘‘I played a game and it felt fine’’.

2 Likes

at which altitude is the climb rate data from?? the yaks do suffer alot more in general up in the skies(not that I want the N1K´s at a bad br and the yak op etc… I´m just curious)…

After a pile of googling, I can’t actually find that data anywhere, unless you measured it in game yourself for each plane - Which I did actually do for the N1K2. The speed tests at least, I have no idea what conditions your climb rate or turn time data is from. The Ground speeds for the N1K2 were at least accurate within error though.
The turn time doesn’t help that gaijin gives you level 0 crew in test flights though so you G lock on the turn test and slow it down - I got 14.83 seconds at ~1500m starting from ~400kph, but G lock slowed it down so it was probably closer to ~13 seconds with a fully trained G tolerance crew.

This is still a strawman argument. You think skilled players don’t abuse strong planes too? Japan isn’t the only nation that has this phenomenon, and the N1Ks aren’t the only planes that have it either.

I’m providing the fact I’ve spaded almost all the aircraft you compared it to, and completely disagree that you think its flight performance is only worth FOUR POINT SEVEN. When in my experience of spading both of the N1K2s, I have never thought “man this plane is weak”. In all honesty, while grinding them my thoughts were more along the lines of “Damn this plane is good, Im enjoying this”

Yak3s are UFOs and have always been terrible planes to compare anything to since they are a singular outlier, and they need to be fixed.
Having flown the Yak9U, its definitely nowhere near the N1K2 in performance.

So I agree to disagree, 5.7 yes. Any lower and they’d be laughably OP.

Indeed.

Overlays and recording exact data points give 100% accurate values.

Airfield start (as per the average Air RB match) and climbing at optimal IAS to 5000m+starting altitude, then dividing the 5000m meters of altitude gained by the seconds taken to achieve that altitude.

This is the most representative climb rate value for average Air RB matches, most fights also don’t take place above 5000m and thus I stuck with that value.

If desired, climb rate values at given altitudes (taken from overlays) can also be used, but they’ll show the same results as my values.

No.

You’re also new to the game if you don’t believe in weakers playerbases for certain vehicles/nations and strong playerbases for others.

*Cough * 2S38, M1A1 Click-Bait, T-80UD, M1A1 AIM * Cough *

Case in point: F4U-1a is a top 5 most broken and under tiered fighter in the entire game, it’s sitting on an appalling 0.59 K/D and 0.48 K/M ratio.
A6M6C is one of the most underpowered and horrendously awful aircraft for it’s BR in the entire game, meanwhile it’s sitting on a 1.26 K/D and 0.92 K/M ratio.

More fee-fees.

DEFYN also states it’s an incredibly sad plane at it’s BR, so if you really want to go down the ‘‘Player experience > Actual data’’ route, DEFYN is most certainly a more trustworthy and experienced player than you are.

I asked you to provide me with flight performance data for the N1K2 and Yak-9U.

At this point the only reason why you refuse to give me actual data instead of continuous ‘‘Trust me bro’’ is because you know the Yak-9U has superior flight performance or you’re just sticking your head in the sand when faced with actual evidence.

Anyways, you’re just going to continue claiming the Earth is flat so I’ll leave it here.

I literally agreed that it could go down. I disagreed it should be as low as you want it to be. Even your data puts it as comparable to 5.7 aircraft, not 4.7 aircraft, which is where I said it should be.

No, the reason is I can’t be bothered, because I’m too busy playing the F-2A at the moment, and I can’t be bothered finishing the last couple modules to spade the Yak9U to make it a fair comparison, and because I know that the Yak9U is inferior because It lacks energy retention, doesn’t turn as well as a yak 3, is more cumbersome, and doesn’t quite have the pure ability to have a definite advantage in any performance metric over anything else at its BR, and that is me flying it At its BR. I also can’t be bothered because at the end of the day this is pointless bickering over something gaijin definitely won’t do, especially considering that the J7W1 deserves that BR reduction far more, yet hasn’t been touched either.

Side note, pure Vmax flying straight and level at X altitude is pretty rare of a stat to actually matter. being able to accelerate and gain energy quickly from lower speeds is much more valuable in actual gameplay conditions, and the N1K2 is pretty strong at doing that. Even the LF Mk9 Spitfire is a lot slower off the mark when recovering from low speeds.

So yes, agree to disagree.

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!

image
image

2 Likes

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.

2 Likes

This took more testing to ascertain.


I didn’t start logging at the same speed for both, so the lines are offset. But the LF quickly overtakes the N1K2-J.


SEP is a measure of ‘raw’ acceleration in a way, it’s pretty much a direct indicator of climb rate.

What about turning?

To absolutely nobody’s surprise:


-highest points on chart are the relevant information, downward spikes are (attempts at) trying to keep the pilot from blacking out.

The LF Mk9 beats it at every speed, except for a VERY narrow band at ~570kph where the N1K2-J is marginally better. It’s still losing.

What about energy retention?


-lowest points on chart are relevant info

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.

3 Likes

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.

https://github.com/MeSoftHorny/WTRTI/releases

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.

Why the N1K2-Js should be 5.3:

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.

(Instant) turn rates: identical at every speed.

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.

I did hint above that the engines weren’t quite the same. Well, they aren’t.


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.

2 Likes

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)

1 Like