It would still manage to somehow do it lol
The ITO:
Just realised there could be an air refuelling feature where you can refuel your teammates…
A good fix about fox-2’s, but I wonder if you’ll ever implement “multiple lock” for fox-1 only carriers.
I hope so, I really look forward to it
1 Like
KC-130J would be perfect for that.
Especially as the Harvest Hawk.
Shameless plug:
2 Likes
Now the question is whether they can actually make good decisions based on this
1 Like
Sounds a lot more reasonable.
JP233 and CBU-97 my beloved
Warcrime maxxing
3 Likes
F-16XL-1 gonna be even more peak.
2 Likes
I hope that since 2027 onwards increase to 320 km X 320 km for attack aircraft, fighter aircraft and strategic bombers around mid 1990’s ~ current era
I believe aircraft from late WW2 ~ korean war era can playable this size
4 Likes
does this mean proper dead zones and actual limitations on sensors limited to 1 missile and activation delays, because we all know the MI28 only has it on the underbelly so top down missiles shouldnt be spoofed so hopefully thats what you mean by this
4 Likes
Yes.
26 Likes
I answered a similar question on the Russian forum today.
The complaint is understandable; on one hand, it really does seem like there are too many nuclear strikes in the endgame, making everything look chaotic.
On the other hand, the current spawn cost for nuclear-capable aircraft allows more than just a select few to use them; it enables a faster conclusion to a match where one team has a clear advantage—preventing it from dragging on into an endless ordeal—and makes the endgame visually epic.
Plus, it allows almost every player to significantly influence the outcome of the match—usually by destroying enemy airfields.
If we were to raise the cost, we would certainly increase the significance of the nuclear-capable aircraft, but at the price of greater frustration in the event of a failed sortie (or a teamkill), as well as reduced combat dynamics and less of that epic feel.
We are considering how to resolve this conflict; we don’t have any breakthrough ideas just yet, but we’re working on it :).
The naval component has faced—and continues to face—numerous air defense issues; we have resolved some, while others remain to be addressed. It is evident that current vessels are ill-suited for top-tier combat (though modern versions featuring effective air defense systems are currently in development). Once these improvements are implemented, we will revisit the issue of ship rewards. In my personal experience, ships are currently being destroyed too quickly, particularly at the highest tiers.
The reward for destroying a specific type of vehicle is calculated based on the overall rate at which Silver is earned in the mode, using a large sample size. We regularly analyze the statistics and make adjustments as necessary.
14 Likes
That’s all for today—sorry, I need to get back to work. As I mentioned, the community managers will keep an eye on things and put together a summary for us later, so if you have anything substantive to share, I’d appreciate it.
24 Likes
Are there any plans to improve overall rewards? Especially for destroying naval targets?
2 Likes
Hope one day, with these new maps and nuclear escalation mode, we will get a low-altitude autopilot or something. Or at least radar mapping cuz sometimes we have to land blindly in Simulator mode, when weather is harsh.
As always, the transparency is much appreciated. Thanks for your time!
4 Likes
The non-player Buk-M1 TELAR, ICC command trailer for I-HAWK SAM complex, M35A2 w/ awning, and AN/MSQ-104 command post for MIM-104 SAM complex. W/ the exception of the first one, these were shown in WiP state for the most recent Community Update.
The glass-windowed vehicles having crew visible inside them is good attention to detail.
Something like a minimum BR of 5.7 would give you a great set up for a late WW2 bracket. Only thing missing is a ground component. 😁
1 Like