Nakajima Ki-43 Hayabusa ("Oscar")

[nrshida]

I'm not arguing against that nrshida, all I'm saying is that if we're going purely by historical significance, then there are other more important additions. If we're going by purely MA usage, there are other more important additions. If we're going purely off of special events usage, then there are other more important additions.


If you want the Ki-43, then fine. But don't try to make it sound like its THE most important thing we could get right now, cause its not.

Well that's arguable of course. And I am saying that historical significance or MA usage being the criteria that HTC uses for the choice of which aircraft to include next is an assumption on behalf of a lot of forum users and a dubious assumption at best, if you look at the evidence.

Actually I'm personally indifferent to the Ki-43. I'd like to see every plane that ever fired a round or dropped a bomb included eventually. My personal favourite that we don't yet have is the Westland Whirlwind (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,313538.0.html) and I'd have a fairly hard time justifying that on any of the criteria listed above.

[Karnak]

Aircraft, yes. But you're completely ignoring GV's. If you want to use the 'this is historicly important' argument, then you have to acknowledge the fact that GV's did the heavy lifting in WWII.

Depends on which battle and theater, but most often, yes.  However, Aces High is primarily a flight combat game.  I don't object to more GVs being added, but it would take a lot of additional changes to make things like the Panzer III, Char B and Cruiser IV to be viable for anything, even scenarios, beyond just adding them.

Aircraft were important, yes, but it was the GROUND troops that actually went out, and took the land away from the enemy. Ground troops could have won the war if aircraft had never been invented, but the aircraft couldn't have won the war without the ground troops to actually go and take the land away.

In some battles it was all on the aircraft, in some it was all on the ships.  Ground troops don't handle oceans very well.

[ink]

Aircraft, yes. But you're completely ignoring GV's. If you want to use the 'this is historicly important' argument, then you have to acknowledge the fact that GV's did the heavy lifting in WWII.

Aircraft were important, yes, but it was the GROUND troops that actually went out, and took the land away from the enemy. Ground troops could have won the war if aircraft had never been invented, but the aircraft couldn't have won the war without the ground troops to actually go and take the land away.

you forget we are not playing a game that is based on the war........it does not matter what happened in the war....all we are using are the tools from WW2...the only time it matters are scenarios and FSO's...and that's just for plane match-up.....

GV's are NOT main focus of Aces High, that is why they put more effort into the Air game, but I see a lot of attention going to the GV game that I personally think is Boring and pointless and feel HTC should only focus on the High part of Aces High.


just my .02$

[Butcher]

Depends on which battle and theater, but most often, yes.  However, Aces High is primarily a flight combat game.  I don't object to more GVs being added, but it would take a lot of additional changes to make things like the Panzer III, Char B and Cruiser IV to be viable for anything, even scenarios, beyond just adding them.
In some battles it was all on the aircraft, in some it was all on the ships.  Ground troops don't handle oceans very well.

Clearly he knows nothing about the Pacific War, which were dominated by Airpower not ground or tanks. Case point the Triangle from Rubaul, Moresby to Guadalcanal, Aircraft dominated this theater in every respect where tanks were not an option due to the terrain, bases were the most important thing as well as aircraft maintenance - something Japan neglected all to often and paid the price when more fighters sat on the ground due to missing a single part in which a broken up plane down the line had the part - however they wern't allowed to simple ravish the broken up plane for parts.

Torpedo 8 had a similar situation at Guadalcanal (Lunga) where they pieced together a bunch of F4F's, SBD's to rebuild a busted up TBM used to bomb japanese artillery positions, surprisingly nobody wanted to up the lone TBM because frankly it was made from to many parts of other aircrafts.

Tanks and ground troops played a vital role on the ground, but it wasn't until air power dominated the theater that ground troops had any effect overall, you couldn't simply sneak ships around, look at the Solmon slot which Japanese tried to run destroyers though, airpower was the key to survive.

Tanks do have a place in Aces High, but will never stand up in line with the planes.

[Tank-Ace]

I know that GV's aren't the main focus of AH, but again, thats not the point. The point is that you're saying "this is most needed right now because of its historical significance" when just about every EW GV we don't have actually had more historical significance.

Again, you want the Ki-43? Fine. But don't expect me to let you get away with the lie.

Butcher, again, not the point. Aircraft couldn't have won the war, because aircraft couldn't have taken all the islands away from the Japanese. Really, all WWII aircraft's worth simply boils down to how it can help the ground troops. I can't think of one single conventional weapons-carrying aircraft that doesn't follow this rule.

Bombers: attack enemy infrastructure and weaken morale, so your ground troops have an easier time of it
Ground Attack Planes: directly support a ground attack, or hit other targets that could otherwise delay the ground troops
Fighters: stop enemy bombers and ground attack planes
Transports: move ground troops and stuff FOR the ground troops to where it needs to go
Recon planes: gather intelegence and reconosance thats usefull to the ground troops, or other support weapons.

Really, only a nuclear armed aircraft has the potential to end a war without need of ground troops. But in WWII (the main focus of this game) they were limited by range. Range had to be extended by ground troops going out and taking land away from the enemy, so the aircraft could take off from further forward and reach their target.

[Karnak]

The ground troops at Coral Sea and Midway sure played a huge role.

[Tank-Ace]

Again, you miss my point. Those aren't war winning battles. The war could have been won if those actions hadn't been fought. But the same isn't true of the Allied invasion of europe.

and the aircraft at coral sea were inderectly supporting the ground troops either way. They were trying to ensure that they had controll of the skys in later battles, so they could support the most important element of any army: the common foot soldier.

[Mitsu.]

The Ki43 has an excellent handling when shooting, IJAAF pilot called it as "Flying Sniper".
So you can get kills in it in a sortie, of course only if enemy aircrafts tried turn against Ki43...

Bring Ki-43/Ki-100 to Aces High...  

[Karnak]

Again, you miss my point. Those aren't war winning battles. The war could have been won if those actions hadn't been fought. But the same isn't true of the Allied invasion of europe.

and the aircraft at coral sea were inderectly supporting the ground troops either way. They were trying to ensure that they had controll of the skys in later battles, so they could support the most important element of any army: the common foot soldier.

It would have been very much harder to beat Japan without breaking their sword at Midway, or elsewhere and no such breaking would have involved troops on the ground.  You are much too dismissive of the navy and air forces.

[Tank-Ace]

I said nothing of the navy. But the fact remains, you still have to actually go out and take the ground away from the enemy, no way around it.

[Karnak]

I said nothing of the navy. But the fact remains, you still have to actually go out and take the ground away from the enemy, no way around it.

Which cannot be done in the Pacific as long as there are strong navy and airforce units in play.  The boots on the ground are the final phase, but the outcome is already decided by the time there are any boots on the ground and that outcome is decided by the ships and planes.  The war was even ended from the air.

The best the Japanese could do on the ground is turn what was supposed to take a few days into a month long grind on Iwo Jima.

[Tank-Ace]

You misunderstand me. I'm not belitteling the airforce in any way. Nor the navy. All I'm saying is that, without the ground troops, the aircraft and ships would be rather pointless. Yeah, you've bombed and shelled some island back into the stone-age. But you STILL have to have troops on the ground go and take it away from the enemy before anyone, airman, seaman, or soldier, can use it.


To that end, all of our modern weapons are simply infintry support weapons (save possibly tanks, since the two often co-depend on each other).

So saying that a major aircraft is more significant historicly than a major ground vehicle is simply not true. Arguably, even the M3 halftrack is more significant than the Ki-43, since it served on all fronts and in large numbers.

Thats all I'm saying.

[HighTone]

Didn't need to capture Rabaul. Cut it off by air and sea, and the Japanese troops there ended up having to fight off starvation instead of an invasion.


+1 for the Ki-43 

[Butcher]

Didn't need to capture Rabaul. Cut it off by air and sea, and the Japanese troops there ended up having to fight off starvation instead of an invasion.


+1 for the Ki-43 

Here's the difference from Europe and Pacific, Rubaul and Truk were both fortresses and bypassed and cut off, using air power and naval power neither were able to defend themselves, doesn't matter how many million of ground troops they had (exaggeration) they were - simply starved to death of fuel, food, medical supplies. This is majority why the allied island hopping campaign was effective, take one base to isolate and cut off the others.
Using raw power, the american's were able to crank out carriers like no tomarrow, by the time Guam/Saipan invasion came the Japanese pretty much had no more air power due to lack of training - however its funny to note at this particular time the Japanese were cranking out more pilots in 44 then from 39-43. However the skill level was not there, these pilots were simply fresh from flight school with no time in an air frame (Marianas turkey shoot).

+1 Ki-43, although its a nimble little turny bird, I still think the gunpackage blows

[Ack-Ack]

Again, you miss my point. Those aren't war winning battles. The war could have been won if those actions hadn't been fought. But the same isn't true of the Allied invasion of europe.

How little you know of WW2 history...at this point you should just stop.

and the aircraft at coral sea were inderectly supporting the ground troops either way. They were trying to ensure that they had controll of the skys in later battles, so they could support the most important element of any army: the common foot soldier.

The Battle of the Coral Sea was not fought in support of ground troops like you seem to think, it was to stop the Japanese invading force from landing at Port Moresby.

ack-ack