Yes.
1 Like
if we go down that route, interceptors should be cheaper to spawn, russia shouldn’t have a 5 year advantage on the AAMs they use, and the number of planes on each side should be completely unbalanced
I would also remind you that KH38 was put in active service in 2012. If Gaijin is respecting each nation’s doctrines as you imply, i’m a bit disappointed to see that brimstones, AASMs and latest variants of mavericks are not present in game. Weird really, especially considering most of those entered service before the KH38.
I don’t really see the point of that argument tbh
11 Likes
And Su-25s shouldn’t be immune to radar missiles just by flying below 100m
2 Likes
You mean immune like every other plane in the game that flies low.
2 Likes
And every other plane in game shouldn’t be able to either. But in this specific case, it means that even if there is a fighter up to counter them, they have to traverse the entire map to attempt an IR missile shot against an auto flare, or even closer for a guns kill
date of introduction doesnt matter how many times does it have to be said
stuff is added by capability, not date of introduction
also funny how youre crying about the r73 being “5 years late” while having the best missile in game
neither should any other plane?
damn double standards go crazy
you when the game progresses to newer technologies but its not american 🤯🤯🤯🤯😱😱😭😭😭😭😭
also would you be so kind to point me towards an american plane that:
- has IRCM
- is not a copy of a plane
- isnt low tier
- isnt absolutely op
since you want your freedom planes to be better than they already are
Those 2 are contradictory, pick one please
I was talking about R27ER, R73 is fine, also, idk what missile you are talking about when you mention “best missile”
best ir missile in game, the 9m my fault og
theyre 2 statements so no they dont
Either you introduce things by capabilities, ie more powerful CAS for NATO and more powerful SPAAs for russia, wich leads to asymetrical balance
Or you introduce things using symetrical balance, with everything being roughly equal in performance (SPAA and CAS).
Saying “NATO didn’t develop SPAAs so they shouldn’t get more powerful AA systems in game but things should also not come by date” implies that one side can get the advantages in SPAA by virtue of the doctrine argument, but the other can’t get the CAS advantage by the same logic because it’s nullified by a 10+ years gap
It is therefore, contradictory
3 Likes
considering the us made no other short range spaas that are confined to 1 vehicle, means it doesnt contradict
it is a fact
As you said :
russia didn’t make better CAS than NATO. This “better” CAS should be in game for the same reason pantsir currently is in game.
I don’t even own a vehicle that can fire 9M X)
2 Likes
Have you not seen the AN/TWQ-1 Avenger, Stryker (M-)SHORAD , Stryker MSL and various other configurations?
Sure few interesting or advanced options exist but that doesn’t mean things weren’t tested, and as such options remain.
Also there remains the option to buff the Stinger via the addition of various capabilities & mechanics.
4 Likes
isnt and never will
Oh, guys, you still arguing with the same 2 common sense challenged trolls from russian forum? Godspeed fellas, godspeed…
2 Likes
double standard and contradiction it is, then
Arbitrarily? Are you telling me Gaijin simply decided not to add them not because of their dependency on external systems and a failure to operate without them, but just because they feel like it?
Preach, brother! You sure seem to know how to implement it! Why don’t you go make a suggestion as to how the mechanic should be implemented?
There is no contradiction there whatsoever.
What about the R-27ER? They were made within the same decade.
That’s the thing it’s Almost always the Russians. They’ve had mid to late 2010s and early 2020s tanks for almost 3 years now. Germany just finally got the 2A7V not to long ago (it’s not even added correctly but they refuse to fix it).
Best medium range IR missile, R73 is best close range, and R27ET is best long range