They already said they weren’t going to. This is what pissed everyone off.
It was already many times said by Smin that they don’t plan to add real variant of Ho-Ri
2 Likes
The first powered flight of the Ho 229 was February 1945. The very last delivery of tungsten ore to Germany from Spain, their last supplier, was in July 1944, due to D-Day cutting off the last physical route for tungsten to pass through France.
So there is no possibility in a universe where D-Day was a success that the Ho 229 could ever have had HVAP. Zero.
But that just exemplifies the point, really. Pretty much ALL the late war Axis vehicles assume a world where they actually were winning the war or at least extending it much longer: some allowances generally have to be made even if realistically in this universe none of those vehicles were going to be made (in the universe we live in the Ho 229 would not have seen production… In a universe where there were squadrons of Ho 229s, the Nazi globe-wide empire that made fleets of them would also have better tungsten options.) Similarly there’s no universe where the Soviet Union had lots of battleships where they didn’t also have the resources and skills for the metallurgy required for battleships. It’s just a different hypothetical, really.
2 Likes
Then this begs the question; Why bother mentioning that new info has come to light when they’re not going to make good on said new information aside from confirming the Ho Ri we have are both inaccurate? Besides, we know the gun for the tank existed.
They were better off just giving us a cut and dry post of “Hey, this is finally leaving the game. Get it while you can, see you next post.” and call it a day. Guess we’ll just get another T-whatever tank for Russia or another F-16 variant instead of a historically accurate Ho Ri.
1 Like
Wrong example. The Panther II was cancelled in 1943.
I vehemently oppose the removal of all these vehicles, just keeping facts straight.
For the record, this is a crucial reason why I’m in favour of paper vehicles so long as actual engineers seriously and demonstrably worked on them historically. That, too, is just a different hypothetical dictated by game balancing reasons.
Fair enough, I don’t actually know the details of the Panther 2 beyond a hull was built and the Americans put a regular Panther turret on it to display it in a museum, so that was a wild guess, but given the amount of times Hitler canceled and restarted various projects who knows what might have happened, the Maus was canceled more than once if I recall correctly.
All superheavy tank projects were cancelled in summer 1944, but Porsche clandestinely kept working on the Maus in defiance of Hitler.
The Panther II was cancelled when a much cheaper solution was found that achieved the same goal of increased survivability against Soviet anti tank rifles, that being the addition of side skirts to regular Panthers.
I don’t have my book on Ferdinand Porsche any more so I cannot double check, but I think it had been canceled and restarted prior to that, there was quite a bit of infighting between the German industrialists at the time and Hitler was apparently rather easily swayed by flashy presentations.
But like I said I am going off memory of a book I read over a year ago, so I may be misremembering,
either way a corrected Panther 2 would be a better vehicle than the C&P M48 or whatever replaced it.
And I will endeavor to not make more off handed historically in accurate comments in the future.
2 Likes
Unfortunately, I agree. The capability gap has not been addressed.
This also did not happen with Germany, by the way: the fact of the matter remains that if you’re a veteran player from before 2019, you have access to an incredibly powerful 7.0 lineup that no one else in the game gets to touch, and in a BR range where Germany goes from having a great 6.7 lineup, to just an overtiered BP vehicle at 7.0 (the SPz 12), to two premiums and one Wiesel at 7.3, to a half-lineup at 7.7 (a Patton and an SPH; the Maus is only available once a year and very situational too).
The gap those three fake vehicles existed to fill, is not filled to this day, and we are seven years removed from when they were hidden. I’m afraid Japan’s fate will not be any kinder in terms of tech tree development.
That’s not really Duderug’s point though. A newer player won’t get the Ho-Ri. So you’re left (once again, just as with Germany) with a Patton and an SPH. The SPH in question may be cool, but it’s situational. The M47 is functional, but boringly unoriginal. There are a million of them in WT. If you’re making your way through the tree it’s not exactly exciting to stop at 7.3 to play yet another M47 just so you can give some support to the Type 99.
Add the Ho-Ri and at least that is a lineup, with different use cases. Two vehicles is not a lineup, the gap the Ho-Ris were created for still exists, and the most worrying aspect of all is that the developers seem to think the gap has been addressed. This is a step back for the Japanese tree. Who knows, maybe in seven years they’ll get something else in this BR range that fills this gap. One can hope. Germany still isn’t there and it’s a far more coddled tree than Japan…
And yet there is effectively no lineup between 6.7 and 7.7. And even 7.7 is an extremely skewed lineup that relies on copy-paste and a partially removed vehicle to support itself.
Like I said at the beginning of this comment, the gap (in both BR and capability!) left by the three removed German vehicles has not been filled seven years in. I doubt the Japanese tree will fare better.
2 Likes
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
1 Like
Gaijin is focusing on deleting unrealistic vehicles, but what about that ammo crate? at least restrict it to vehicles with full ammo only
Okay - lets put even aside the fact that by not putting them in the same line, you disrupt how some players have their crews set up that X crew or crews are used in Y and that every time you mess around and move stuff it throws us off. The R2Y’s - as weird as they were in the line that was otherwise naval bombers - were classified as fighter aircraft, that happened to carry 800kg bombs. Which is why outside of absolute necessity to hit ground targets in a close match or the like they were never used as ground attack, what with the roughly 4 minute reload time on the bombs. Their flight characteristics also made them excel in their assigned role - that of a fighter - again making them a weird choice to have been in the line with the dive bombers - much as those with forward facing armament also make excellent turn fighters, instead of the line with the J7W that you put the Thai aircraft into.
The 2 aircraft at the same Rank, though neither the same BR, the original lone F-84G and the newly added L-39 at 7.7 and 6.7 respectively, don’t even come close to excelling as fighters, the F-84 in particular turns like a semi. Though these are classified strike aircraft and so unlike the R2Y’s have an in-air re-arm of about 40 seconds or less on the same type of bombs. One of your whole things you’ve mentioned elsewhere in this thread is that the Ho-Ri replacements fill the same role. That is somewhat debatable as SPG vs TD - but they are otherwise the same class with the same general idea on what they do. ‘Replacing’ the R2Y’s with the F-84 and L-39 would be like replacing the Tiger with an Ostwind 2 or vice versa for their roles. It’s not that you can’t shoot a plane down with a Tiger or destroy a tank with an Ostwind - but they are not really designed or well suited for it generally.
I would also point out a whole thing was made about how lines of sub-nations weren’t really going to be a thing and more just adding them where needed in a tree, and where they fit logically. And while changing it now would screw up all the pilot training I’ve done to keep things straight - it would have been more logical that while the gap would still exist for the Thai strike aircraft to go in to the line the R2Y’s were in - as that is a line of dive bombers and the like, ending in the AV-8S late at Rank 7 and 11.3, even though that would leave a gap between the F-1 and F-16AJ for the time being, as well as the Ki-83 and the F-5A, neither of which is as bad as the current gap between the G8N1 and the MiG-29N, which is another weird jump in types outside the F/A-18D 2 seater albeit again flagged fighter, so using ‘dumb weapons’ comes with a massive penalty to in-air reload where as as a strike fighter, which typically when not trainers the 2 seaters are used more in the Ground Attack role cause of the extra guy and slightly worse performance.
To summarize - you did not give us an actual aircraft that replaces the R2Y even remotely in function, you have added 2 strike aircraft where we had 3 fighters - both in categorization and in function. In removing the R2Y - you chopped off an already stunted line even further. By adding all those strike craft to fighter lines - instead of to the line that formerly had the R2Y’s in it, you also completely disrupt the flow of crew training particularly for Arcade players, as even in Arcade many strike aircraft can’t pull the same body crushing maneuvers as fighters - and so we train those crews differently focusing more on in-air reload reduction, ordnance accuracy, and gun CD/jamming reduction than increasing the amount of G’s a pilot can take and other pilot skills. To cycle back to the Ho-Ri for a moment, as it is the main topic, this also becomes a conundrum when you take a line and have it bounce back and forth between manual load and auto reloaded vehicles because training reload is a high priority, however if your using an auto-loader where you can’t really improve the reload time - that obviously takes a back seat and especially on turreted vehicles can focus on improving say the gunners skills more.
Even if you want to argue ‘replacements are not required to be in the same line’ - which is an incredibly bad argument to start with - if not just in general for the simple fact the precedent has been that every other replaced vehicle I can recall went in to the same line, I do believe you would agree - based on your pointing out how the Type 99 and 75 are supposed to fill the role of the Ho-Ri’s, while also going to the same line, that a replacement should still fill the same general role of the vehicle being replaced - to which the 2 vehicles at the same Rank and BR range as the R2Y’s do not fill the R2Y’s role in any way, shape, or form. As you have at least 1 Indonesian aircraft in the Japanese tree so far (even if as a premium) if you had say the Indonesian T.55 Vampires, that based on what I’ve seen were still armed with cannons and were still able to be used as fighters, with some ground attack ability just like the R2Y’s, even if that wasn’t following the B7A2 but the Ki-83 where those Thai planes are now, where it’d make more sense - being the same type/role and BR range - that, would be a replacement for the R2Y’s. Or any other actual jet fighter that’s around the 7.3 BR range that you can find a way to put there.
5 Likes
If this is so then they should be added in exactly the same condition they were left in frankly because if they were never finished we don’t know if changes could’ve been made to armor, weaponry, propulsion, equipment etc the Soyuz for example the only seen parts of it were its hull cause that’s all that’s been completed we never know what could have been changed with it later on which means some parts of it in game have a chance of never even being on the real ship in real life
The Soviet BB / BC projects were notoriously never finalised in regards to their actual design. I think the heavy flak / dual-purpose battery was never decided on
Its always amusing to observe Gaijin’s illogical, whimsical rules being made up to support their horrendous decisions to remove unique vehicles that give the flavour of the tech tree and at the same time deny the addition of partially built prototypes cause “not enough info” while refusing to elaborate on what information they need.
Standards…in a game where we have brochure jets, brochure missiles, ships that could not be built according to their engineers, weapons that could have been used if Stalin/Brezsnyev would have wanted it, and trial helicopters/tanks.
Anything to destroy the uniqueness of tech trees.
Remove what people enjoy,deny what people want, and add what they don’t want. Great idea, gaijin.
Also, Type 99 is not a replacement and has not been a replacement for the many years it has been in game.
1 Like
To add to the list.
KF41 Lynx to this day has no side armor plating at all, despite an accepted report providing information on it.
1 Like
So far I think the Ho Ri Removal is quite good.
there are so many people now playing Japan. Really badly. Because they probably have only played the big 3 before.
Im watching Japans player stats drop by the game, we might get something actually representative of these vehicles true capabilities when put in the hands of the lowest common denominator.
They will dissappear as soon as they get Ho-Ri because there isn’t a reason for people to play nation with average (and sometimes terrible) performance with the exception of a couple of vehicle that can be called meta
Just unlocked the Hori Prod tonight using Proto. I think it’s the usual problem with these situations - people are buying the prototype to grind up the tree and unlock the production, but they don’t have a usable lineup for a while. I’ve seen so many one vehicle lineups, it’s very annoying. I at least have Type60/SPAA, etc.
2 Likes