Lunarwolf and Others,
The following are only my opinions and I don’t believe there are any “right” or “wrong” answers. I believe a thorough discussion can bring about a better understanding on everyone’s part.
I can understand any difference of opinion, especially on Japanese Fighters since there are so many good choices, like yours.
HBG and FMG have already made(or anounced) duplicate units such as two different Trucks, both making the TBF “Avenger” Torpedo Bomber and have discussed replacing the OOB Heavy Cruiser with a newer, better detailed version of the same. So I don’t think there are any problems with producing a better “Zeke” as well as other units, “Kates” and “Vals” immediately come to mind.
And eventually, I would love to have many many different units available,…eventually.
------------------------------------------
Point #1
I think we should primarily look at this from the perspective UNIT TYPES instead of simply what might be “Cool” to have. We need to end up with units of simular types from all countries.
For example, IMHO we don’t need an “Ise/Hyuga-Type” Battleship/Carrier hybrid as there is no comparable Allied equivilent.
I personally would love to have a Ki-46 Type 100 “Dinah” as I believe it to be one of the COOLEST LOOKING WW2 aircraft ever designed. It was used as an Attack/Light Bomber/Night Fighter/Recon aircraft. But until it’s decided to produce Attack/Light Bomber/Night Fighter/Recon aircraft I haven’t even mentioned my wish. The DeHavilland Mosquitto is already available OOB, and the Douglas A-20 “Havoc” would be the American equilvilent. The A-20 “Havoc” was used as a Light Bomber and modified as an Attack aircraft w/6 50 cal. for strafing and skip-bombing(along with the B-25s). Can you say "Battle of the Bismark Sea? You know,…this might be something to consider.
–-------------------------------------------------
Also, I believe each unit needs to be as unique as possible, and keeping in mind historical values and the production totals of each choice.
–-------------------------------------------------
Also, "“Bang for the Buck” is a term we should all keep in mind. Whenever one unit was used as several TYPES or by more than one COUNTRY we’ve just multiplied our units available!
Some examples:
The Japanese Type LO “Thelma” Transport could also be used as an Allied Transport or to represent an Allied Patrol/Bomber plane, the Lockheed
PV-1 “Ventura” that many Allied countries used.
The American Douglas C-47 “SkyTrain” (to be produced by FMG) could also be used as a Japanese Transport as they were one of four allied types that the Japanese built under license.
There are several examples of this kind.
A little paint and/or decals and you have several more choices available. And this should help HBGs and FMGs sales. And personally, I want them to make a profit on their huge investment so we can have even more units!
Point #2
Your choice of the Ki-43 Type 1 “Oscar” is an EXCELLENT choice for a Japanese Early(Army) Fighter and I would be happy with this unit if it were produced.
But if it were a choice between an (Army) “Oscar” and a much better detailed version of a (Navy) “Zeke” I would choose the “Zeke”. Mainly because it would look better flying the “Zekes” off my Carriers. And the “Zekes” were produced in much larger numbers and much better known.
I originally listed the A5M Type 96 “Claude” for my choice as a Japanese Early War Fighter. Realizing that the “Claude” was “too early”(Chinese/Japanese War) for our WW2 Pacific game I changed it to the A6M Type 0 “Zeke”.
Point #3
The Ki-100 is a late war radial version of the Ki-61 “Tony”.
IMHO the Ki-61 “Tony” is a better choice on many levels:
Ki-61 “Tony” Ki-100
Available Entire war Feb. 1945
Total 3,078 396
Also, since the Ki-61 “Tony” was the ONLY in-line engine Fighter the Japanese had, IMHO I believe it garners points for it’s “uniqueness” as well.
What Do YA’ll Think?
“Tall Paul”