[2021] P.30/43

Better to consult @BlueBetain this regard.

Because it's all that's available does not mean it's therefore automatically enough for implementing.

It's the same case with the O-I. Everything available publically has already been presented, but it's insufficient to model the tank with any degree of certainty.

The developers of the other game have much lower requirements for what's necessary to get a vehicle in game. Hence why they have some vehicles that were nothing more than a single sketch.

We do also use private and paid sources. Nobody said we did not.

But so far there is nothing to suggest that any private documentation on the O-I contains any of the material needed or is worthwhile of the probable costs of a deal, if such a deal would even be possible given as you said, another game has already done so. The 3D model is not all thats required for the O-I to be realise

We said we are trying to find ones that are practically viable. Some are simply not viable based on the current information and unless new material surfaces, there is not much for us to pursue further to what is already being done.

Right now we are speculating that such information even exists to begin with. Could be, perhaps, maybes and possibly is not enough to quantify going on a wild goose chase with no clear direction or starting point.

If you have a clear example of information that can be found, please do feel free to share it. But right now, there is hardly any

Suggestion staff are telling you the minimum requirements to create a suggestion topic for a vehicle. After that, it can be passed onto the developers for review.

It is now however the requirements and standards used by the developers and not any sort of conformation such a vehicle will be accepted or viable for the game. So no, there is no guarantee P.30/43 will be considered or implemented. Simply that it meets the requirements for a suggestion to be created.

Hope that helps ^

The M6A2E1 was a fully built and completed tank. All we have done is given it the additional armour plate on top on the frontal slope that it was always planned to have, but was just not fitted for testing and trials because its entirely unnecessary.

Comparing a fully built tank that has an additional plate attached to the front that was planned to something not built at all and never left paper whatsoever does not compare.

There is actually more data (in terms of raw numbers) on the tank in its fully intended complete form with the extra plate than there is

Im not sure why this is still used as an example, as not only is it not related but:

If we used this metric as a measure of requiring a photo to fit or fire something, you would hurt Italy a lot more than help it.

We also have picture of a claimed track link from the O-I tank, it doesn't mean we can add it as a result:

As I explained above, we don't require a photograph of a specific missile fitted as proof to add it. If we did, half the aircraft in game would loose their ordinance, including many Italian aircraft.

We have the offical manual shows it can as well as the fact the aircraft mounted the AIM-9J shows it can mount the J and E.

On top of this, we have the German F-4Fs in the USA mounting the AIM-9J as proof.

So we know the tank had a gun and engine, thats a good start, but its not even remotely close to the M6A2E1.

We don't require this for the developers to consider suggested additional weaponry. I already answered this before unless there is a conflict of sources.

The photo aided in estimation. There was no clear evidence and it was still very much that, estimation. Its an interpretation, the best possible, but still just that.

Meanwhile there is documentation, detailed schematics and drawings clearly defining the additional plate on the M6A2E1 showing it would have been added but simply was not as it as pointless in testing.

Those situations are the same

The M6A2E1 was built in full. It was never given its additional frontal protection plate because there was no need to as it wasn't going to see combat or be used in trials that called for it.

We have a fully built tank and all the required information to recreate its additional plate as it was intended to be along with all the necessary performance data to model that accurately too.

The P.43 by comparison was never built at all. Nothing left the paper except the engine.

Those are two entirely different matters.

We dont need to estimate. Its fully covered in documentation. There is more information on the M6A2E1s extra plate than there is on the Celere Saharianos plate which was just estimated from a photo.

It was never fitted because the trials didn't require it and the tank never saw any combat because it was cancelled before that. That doesn't mean we dont have everything required to accurately model the tank as it was intended to be just like the Celere Sahariano.

Thats true. Slightly thicker uncut paper then ))

We have the exact same standard. Celere Sahariano got exactly what the M6A2E1 is getting, just via a different means. There really is nothing more to add to that.

I really dont know where this keeps coming from. Ive said several times now, unless there is a source conflict, this would have been enough to consider.

If there is missing detail, then yes sure, documentation may be required.

A wooden mockup is still not anywhere close to a real vehicle and is not much more of a step than paper. It's not viable to be implemented currently.

To all relevant purposes, it's a paper vehicle. Arguing about it further than that because it had s Woden model meaningless.

R2Y2 Was introduced at a time when paper was an option when there was no other alternative for a tree. Ho-Ri was also something similar but far more material was available than on P.43 and also much more of it was grounded. Either way, we no longer plan to introduce such machines and have made that clear for some years now.

Both of them would be removed and replaced if viable alternatives could be found and have sufficent material to introduce to the game. But for the time being none exist.

The fact they remain in game for now is not a reason or justification to add mor

Not exactly sure how as I said, both were introduced before the Italian Ground Forces tree was even a thing. It was over a year later before the Italian tree ground was even introduced, by which beforehand we had already made it clear of our intentions to cease adding any "paper tanks" for all nations.

November 2017 was the last Ho-Ri and December 2018 was the introduction of Italian tanks.

Over a year difference.

As I said, they would be replaced if they could be, but they cant.

Thats no reason however to then just add more paper tanks after

Italy doesn't have the same gaps and in fact has better vehicles in these positions.

Italy has the F-84G and F-84F to cover the roles of R2Y2 and Centuaro and R3 T106 FA in the positions where the Ho-Ri is.

Other gaps in any tree will be filled with real existing vehicles rather than paper tanks, which we have already said are no longer part of our addition policy.

Because a respected historian has no evidence to suggest it was built does not mean he is the only source on the matter.

There is quite a lot of information and technical specs of the J6K.

Japan in particular has a finite number of piston engine fighters we can use for event vehicles without impacting the main tree or standard premiums and the J6K was the most interesting and requested options of those after such examples as the Ki-94-II and Ki-87 were already added.

From this aircraft onwards though, we no longer plan to introduce any paper aircr