I would like to construct the following theory to persuade the snail.
The Ki-102 Otsu in War Thunder features the skin of the IJAAF 45th Flying Regiment (Sentai). The 45th Sentai is a light bomber flying regiment. During the Pacific War, they primarily used the Ki-48 Type 99 twin-engine light bomber. However, as Allied fighters became faster and more powerful in the latter part of the war, they switched to the Ki-45 Kai Type 2 two-seat fighter as a high-speed light bomber. Additionally, they also employed the high-performance Ki-102 Otsu as a light bomber. Ships were crucial targets in the Pacific theater. In essence, there’s a critical bug where the light bombers in the light bomber squadron lack anti-ship bombs and air-to-ship missiles for attacking enemy ships in War Thunder.
Concerning bug reports for missing loadouts, at least one suggestion moderator said that missing payloads do not count as historical issues, but should rather be submitted as suggestions. See the following examples:
All three issues were posted by the same user and dealt with by the same moderator.
A recent report concerning the Ki-48 missing 250kg and 500kg bomb loads was recently forwarded to the devs, however it was done so “as a suggestion” according to the moderator that did so.
Thus, if the Ki-102’s missing bombs are posted as a issue report, there exists a possibility that it will be closed. But it could also work out just fine, so it’s worth trying.
The first three reports were done when the historical bug reports, which included missing ordnance loadouts, were still done on the forum. That has since been closed, so all reports now have to be done through the bug report site.
The community bug reporter largely helps with instruction when creating a report, so follow the instructions as they appear once you create a report and you should be fine.
Generally you should first list the affected vehicles, then set aside a section describing the issue and if it’s more of a technical problem what steps are necessary in order to reproduce it, as otherwise it may be difficult to investigate (not overly relevant for historical reports however), and finally, citation standards from the old forum are a broadly useful guideline to work with, as linked below.
The knowledgebase is still archived on the old forums and a lot there is still quite useful, so it is recommended to reference it when in doubt, but once again the community bug reporter does take you through the procedure step by step already.
Agreed. I read all 50 posts but nobody has mentioned the wrong classification as “Interceptor” instead of “strike aircraft” leading to totally different air spawns. As some of you are eager to “fix” the plane, you might add this to your list…
As i saw a tech mod active:
Nice to see that! Your bug report vs suggestion topic is from my pov a joke. Just look at the XF5F bug report - classified as fighter despite being a prototype interceptor (US Navy equivalent to XP-50). Closing the report with “not a bug”" asking the fellow player to create a suggestion might be technically correct based on gaijin’s internal procedures, but is actually a slap in the face for the fellow player addressing this report.
It is more or less a flawed product, so i see the duty to fix it as soon the problem is known - and if a suggestion is necessary it has to be the duty of gaijin to create it. Same points valid for wrong / missing loadouts.
I mean the flight performance is really good for a 3.3 plane in Air RB, but as it got moved from rank III to II the plane became useless for daily or special tasks. So even if real shatter 2.0 might has solved the HE bug of the 57mm there is no need to use it at rank II - at least in Air RB…
Well, there are more than 20.000 open reports and most of them are just players complaining about something.
Everday a hundred reports get added with 75% of them getting labled not a bug.
You can create a report and get lucky and they acknowledge it the next day or it will be open for years.
But even when it’s acknowledge, it might just disappear into the endless TODO stack of reports.
this is accurate to the experience, a little off topic but as of right now my activities page shows several created topics for this forum, but my “drafts” are blank, it has been weeks and nearing months since their original creation and i fear all of them are lost to the void, I dont want to play conspiracy theorist so ill just assume they are for some reason still under “moderator review” or something, but if anyone knows where i can find them so i can copy them down just incase or review the contents to make a better post, let me know.
Unfortunately when you have a big game you get a big volume of people mindlessly complaining for catharsis, which leaves us players who want to actually step up and attempt to give constructive criticism and ideas to improve the game having to play attention grabber to gaijin and hoping the winds of fate shine upon us.
Anyways came back to say yea I still think OP’s valid and japan needs some passes.
Is there a running report about the missing bombs? Japanese Heavy Fighters 1937-1945, Bunrindo Number Catalog and other Bunrindo books confrim 4x50kg, 2x250kg, 1x500 and 1x800kg loadouts.