Why was this added? Only time I’ve done a J’out was when I was in a ho-ro and my opponent (M4 105)was hidden behind a container, their friends came and I just left so I could spawn again and save some time.
LITERALLY the only time i’ve done that
Also does gaijin forget most tank maps are smaller than 3km?
I feel like this is a poor argument/reasoning because like you just said yall will add prototype/experimental aircraft, which are given their planned ordinance even though some didn’t enter service but for some reason the f14D that entered service has 90% of the tech needed for AMRAAMs with documents with enough info for it to receive in game is somehow Preposterous that doesn’t make sense to me…
Plenty of info on armaments?
I thought there was barely enough info to be able to say that it probably could fire Python 3s
I love those LCAs (Light Combat Aircraft) and advanced trainers, it’s always nice to see more of them
From a document I’ve read f14D was having troubles with the software update there was 3 pre. Deployment tapes to fix the issue
As you just highlighted yourself, the F-14D is a production aircraft, not a prototype/experimental aircraft. Its therefor treated the same as all other production aircraft.
I’m not asking for only the f14D to receive special treatment I think all vehicles that has a situation like f14D/w AMRAAMs should have a acceptation made like the prototypes/experimental vehicles in game as those could be argued to be worse than f14D w/ AMRAAMs
could i ask something outside this F-14D Topic?
About China at this update, can we expect something that can be helpful for CAS at early/mid jets? (arund 7.7~11.0)
Giving the A-7K access to AIM-9Ls creates a double standard. As a production aircraft, it’s being given weapons it never historically used…So why are some production vehicles allowed balance/hypothetical ordnance while others are held to strict historical accuracy?
if i look up the A-7K service entry date right now and it turns out to be years after the 9L’s im going to safely assume it’s compatible.
as i expected
Would you by any chance want a MiG-23 at 12.0? They’re driving everyone crazy with 10.7, and something needs to be done about the radar warning system, which lacks a 2cm range. Otherwise, buying a premium Kfir and having to go to the hangar every time an R-24R comes flying at you without even knowing about the launch somehow looks like a hoax with an Fw-190D-13 and six sacks of potatoes. You even made a decal to show how clever you were at fooling people.
Will there be any balance changes? Or is Korea still fighting Vietnam as usual?
There are still quite many Italian subsonics to add, including variants of already represented aircraft, like MB-326E/GB and M-346FT.
I would love to also see MB-339 family (A, B, CD, K), S.211 and G.82, these two especially since they could cover transition area between props and better jets (6.3 - 7.3).
S.211 is kinda a predecessor of M-345 and M-311.
More than further representation of such planes I only want an increase of the amount of Agusta helicopters, because the current condition of Italian helicopters tree is just sad, something like AB-47J, A109AT, AB204B, AB412 and A129A would already help TT abandoned by Gaijin.
Plus in a perfect world they could also accomodate Romanian helicopters (IAR-316B/317/330/SOCAT) inside, making a separate line with Hungarian Hinds.
“i’ll safely assume it’s compatible” isnt evidence, its an assumption. and if thats the bar, “probably compatible” got the A-7K its 9L off a single photo of a captive trainer, even though the actual declassified 1986 armament doc doesnt list the 9L at all. meanwhile the A-7E has actual proof it used it, and we still don’t have it with the L in game.
same pattern with the F-14 IRIAF, it has the R27R1 off one static photo, no confirmed live fire, yet its in game as a fully working radar missile with datalink. F-5C flares come from a dispenser (ALE-40) that didnt exist yet during its actual service window. Kh-38MT still has no solid documentation (wasn’t it in a brochure?) and has been in the game regardless.
We know the F-14 platform actually test fired an AIM-120, and the F-14D carried the AIM-7P as a documented, real weapon in official navy training records. Nobody’s ever actually confirmed the datalink worked on it, but if “it just needed a software update to go fleet-wide” is a good enough argument for AMRAAM, the exact same logic should apply to AIM-7P datalink. Cant use that reasoning for one missile and refuse to extend it to another on the same plane.
so which is it, does “probably compatible” count as proof or does it need airtight documentation every time? feels like it depends on where gaijin wants a plane’s BR to sit, not on whats actually documented.
I just don’t see the point of having 3 F-14s at 13.0.
but…Can we have the A-4M? I’m asking for a friend…Lol
Will the new map tool show us those scoutted enemy vehicles’ types?
But their guns already exists for No. 3 design, same for USS Montana. Are they still not able to meet the requirements ?
Anyone have any guesses as to what size the Falklands ground map will be as well as the BR range that can play it?
@magazine2 any additional information you can share about it?
