@HondaCivici
I am telling you that the language I chose was specific for a reason.
For ground RB/SB, once any air to ground munition is OP, anything more powerful than it is just going to be as OP UNTIL there’s a SPAA that can only frag the carrier of the weaker air to ground munition.
That’s my point, that’s always been my point here.
IF, huge if with how the game is right now, SPAA enters the game that can frag only AGM-65 carriers, THAT weapon stops being OP in ground modes, and only the longer-range [or generally superior] AGMs remain OP.
And no, Hammer/Kh-38/PGM_3 don’t need replaced. New SPAA is necessary instead.
And thanks for proving I said I want AGM-84E in-game by quoting me saying I want it in-game, multiple times.
That’s not how game development works. Weapons aren’t added now, they’re added when THEY ARE READY to function in the game’s code.
Which is what I said: “They should be added when they are ready.” The context was a video game, meaning when they are ready to function in the game’s code.
Obviously I want them to prioritize neat weapons that can be balanced in the current BR range; that doesn’t mean I’m going to have unrealistic expectations for development time.
I do apologize if my previous posts weren’t specific enough; I’m working on that as well as being more tactful with my statements in general.
You’re missing the entire point of that statement. I’ll explain it in simpler terms. The SLAM doesn’t require equivalent systems, balancing, BR changes as there already exists a much powerful agm at the same BR. Other than the development time for the missile to work, it can be added as soon as possible.
I stated “and balance for BR placement”, NOT your interpretation.
Just ask for clarification in the future. It helps provide feedback to me that you didn’t understand, while allowing me to rethink how to word things like that. Okay?
Now for the clarification:
Gaijin needs to make sure the weapons are at the correct BR within the existing range.
I think they could be part of 12.7 [ideally 13.0 in the next ground BR adjustment for aircraft alongside the other IR AGM carriers for now, my opinion will likely change if SPAA, max-ranges, etc change].
That’s all I meant by that statement.
I apologize if my initial statement wasn’t easily understood, but I still don’t know how to word it better.
Again, I apologize that my previous posts weren’t specific enough. Instead of combative posts, I’d appreciate it if you just flat out said “Your posts are vague and annoying to read.” cause I’ll understand that; better if you point out what exactly you feel is vague.
Though I wonder if this will allow new avenues of attack. The KH38MT’s can already get a point lock greater than 20+km (can’t give exact range due to game limitations in live server) and can still hit the target. The only issue is that the sight is not stabilized at 20+km making the user manually stabilize it before locking. This will definitely help the KH-38ML’s though making it even more of a menace because it costs less SP.
Does this also mean the IR Tracking lock will also increase? I’m assuming the 20km track lock is a game limitation and not an actual limitation of the missile.
I think it won’t, but we will see. gaijin is really sensitive about attacking range, they currently forget Laser missiles with iog or gps because people seldom use it.
Why remove something that is real, and only problematic in one game mode, when you could just limit the count (or the armament) from that game mode? Why do you have to remove it in its entirety so that those of us who play ground attack in air modes can’t use it? Or, shock horror, encourage the devs to add air defence threats capable of contending with it.
So because you don’t think that a use case exists, it should be removed. Grom does not strike moving targets, Kh29 is short range for moving targets on account of how far back those targets are present. Kh38 facilitates this far better. But I would note you’re focusing your attention on Russian ordnance, and ignoring the fact that following your logic of “remove what I don’t like in one mode instead of limiting it from that mode” also removes AASMs. Which removing would make Rafale terrible for this use case, as well as making the Mirage 2000D RMV even worse at the role.
We should not be limiting CAS just because ground can’t cope. We should not be removing things just because ground can’t cope. These are incredibly selfish positions on your part. There are dozens of ways to resolve this that don’t include screwing over the people who enjoy CAS in air. But you seem intent on not doing that.
