Historical accuracy and "bombers" do not go together in this game. It's a total laugh.
As for the Ki-100, it's a Ki-61. Same guns, same basic performance (slight difference in the power curves because of the radial engine) but more draggy radial engine.
THe only reason it was made was because they had airframes and no engines. They stuck a radial in, found it easier to maintian, more reliable, but had no better performance than the Ki-61.
Yes, basically true per the sources I see... They went over to a Mitsu radial married to the old airframe and, indeed, even called it a Ki-61-II by some accounts, yet, the descriptions you'll see in, for example, Angelucci/Matricardi or
http://www.aviastar.org/air/japan/ will describe the Ki-100 as something like the "best" while bemoaning the Ki-61. This latter is reasonable, given the reliability issues around the HA140 but the former puzzles me - I see little compelling reason for the glowing revues of the KI-100 - especially given its mediocre top end. OTOH, it is quite lightweight for the period and for its wing area (looks like lower wingloading heavy than Tony). That coupled with the draggy speed-depressing radial, probably make for a sweet handler.
Of course, none of this means I don't want it for the planeset. MORE IS BETTER, EVEN IF MORE is the TBD Devastator.
Anyway, that's my, "opinion in anal retentiveness" (source/fact-based opinion to all but the sloppy). Accuracy counts and, from what I can see, neither were HE100-based and both are intriguing designs.
