Missing the point once again. Should we get the AGM-84E SLAM right now knowing that there exists agms that are more potent than it?
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.
That’s my entire point.
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.
Lets all come to agreement on the following at least:
- Kh-38 is by far the best IR AGM with the Hammer in second’*’
- IR AGMs need to be at a BR (GRB) where there exist SPAA counters of the aircraft that use said AGMs
- More SPAA are needed across all tech trees and standoff/engagement capability WRT range should never have been in favour of one and not all nations
Simultaneously, SPAAs should be balanced WRT to capability, as should all vehicles in WT.
‘*’ So remove Kh-38 and introduce more balanced options as stated in the 1st post.
2 Likes
While I have a subjective disagreement about Kh-38 and Hammer, and opposition to removal; I of course agree with your post as a whole.
I apologize that my stupidity in typing at least partially caused someone to get upset with me and bring their upset here.
1 Like
I wonder what this will do for locking of Kh-38 with IRT since it’s a post-mach missile.
I wont say how good or bad it will be lol but i srsly doubt how well gaijin models this
I think what makes it worse is that eventually the KH-38MT will get IR+IOG+GNSS.
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/VmDVm6m2gZxP
Making the gap between the Hammer and KH-38 larger.
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.
New update increased sight stab range limit to 30km
will be a benefit for Laser guided missiles but remains same for IR FNF.
I think theyll update IR track lock range as well
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.
How about we don’t?
You could quite easily just limit the payload allowed to be taken into ground instead of sabotaging those of us fond of air to ground in air modes.
Why do something that’s unbalanced and unreal when you can do something that balanced and real?
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.
We all know no one is using a Kh-38 for ground attack in Air RB when you have GNSS Grom-2.
As for Air SB, you have again… grom-2 and Kh-29TE.
A topic for another thread however i and most of all players are in agreement that we need more spaa.
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.
oh i never said it doesnt exist. thats just your failure to understand common wordings.
i said it is OP. a stance the majority of WT players share.
no kidding. its a GPS guided munition. this is highly effective for use against pillboxes, stationary targets (which are the majority of all targets in air battles).
if you bothered to read my first post fully, you would realise that i call AASM hammers OP as well.
you thought you had a point there lol.
my logic is this: “maintain balance”. simple. even for a child to understand. No nation has the standoff capability that russia and france have. so until it is the same for all nations. keep it out of the game.
its not about what i like or not. balance is the keyword.
oh wow… so removing a slow guided bomb will make two aircraft obsolete!!!
damn… its a shame they dont have any other weaponry…
rafale:
mirage rmv
youre arguing that CAS should be allowed to reign with impunity. not in Air RB/SB but Ground RB/SB as well?
the removal of these two weapons will not destroy CAS nor air battles. But it will make ground battles a lot more balanced and worth playing.
Youre the one who is selfish.
for now, you are an extreme minority. not many share your view.
I suggested balanced replacements for taking away the Kh-38 so that people like you could consider it
But you seem intent on not doing that.
2 Likes