Yes! A tech tree F-14D! 😃
I’m really hoping the first rank IX jet for Israel isn’t Greek. (I am looking forward to Greek vehicles but I want a truly Israeli rank IX jet, they can add a Greek one simultaneously and I will have no issue.)
1 Like
What will the BR spread for this look like? I’m all for vietnam era, but I preusme this will be split into either 8.7 - 10.0 and 10.0 - 11.0 because I can’t imagine something like the A-4B competing with all aspect R-60Ms that something like a MiG-21bis has access to. I feel a weapon restriction could do wonders in this mode because the R-60M is a 80s missile, and it’s capabilities reflect that.
1 Like
I’m pretty sure that spikes being bad is an intentional balancing decision sadly.
Rewards to the Player for Enemies who J Out of a Tank or Ship for Ground and Naval Battles
Air Battles has had a leave-destruction mechanic for a long time, where leaving your aircraft would grant the destruction credit to the nearest enemy. We’re now adding this mechanic to Ground and Naval battles! For example, leaving a ground vehicle or a ship (“J’ing” out) now credits the destruction to the nearest enemy (3 km for a ground vehicle, 20 km for a ship). It’ll work the same as it does in Air Battles, also with a reduced reward. If there is no enemy within these radiuses, then the destruction will be given to the enemy player who’s ammunition is closest in the radius. If there is no enemy or ammunition, then no one will get the destruction credit.
About the empty mags, doest secondaries and tertiaries are counted it ?
Does players will recieve full spawn point if a player J out ?
Cause this a VERY important feature for naval EC !
As an Air Arcade Player - you seriously need to add 3 things to the list of what your adding:
-
Better Gunners - Look, I’ve played since the early days, when the Po-2 was an OP nightmare because defensive gunners were really terminators that made the T-1000 look like a musket. I get we don’t want that level of insanity back - but they seriously need to be better than they are now in terms of range they open fire, tracking, and accuracy. Running down something like a B-17 with an extremely low closing speed should be one of those ‘that’s a bad idea’ things.
-
Less instant explosion deaths - Look, the fact that there is literally photo evidence, and video evidence, of B-17’s and other aircraft taking 20-30mm hits and not falling apart and even making it back to base should have been a thing, but at least your finally on it. But my biggest issue right now after useless gunners - is that ever since you made the changes to bombs and ordnance being able to be shot more easily, the bombs in the bay are constantly being detonated by even 7.62mm rounds let alone anything higher. At this point, in terms of cause of destruction - that’s probably about 45% of it, that, or instant fuel tank detonations which should not be as crazy as they are.
-
Detonations of dropped bombs - Now for the other 45% of my deaths since that change, the fact that constantly, I go to drop a bomb, or especially a series of them while bombing a base or a line of vehicles - almost every freaking time somehow a bomb I’ve released gets hit, and even when I’ve turned away with some amount of time passing still had the bombs somehow get hit and kill me. It’s one thing for missiles on missiles to knock each other down. Or for the thousands of rounds from a ship to just by sheer numbers and volume maybe hit a bomb, but the amount of just bombs getting detonated as people go to drop them is ridiculous.
These 3 things make it unfun as well, more so than my wings getting ripped of by a couple .50 hits. Also - while your looking at the bombers, seriously - you guys need to look at the A-10 and it’s damage model regarding damage to the tail and loss of control. It should not be this easy to just graze the thing or hit it with some .50’s and it nose dives.
We will give partial credit for listening on that one. However - it should be different from the premium considering we will now have on the Arcade end 5 F-14’s at 12.3 if you do that. And that line, has a massive gap now from 12.3 -14.0 with nothing in it. We have shown you documents - that show provisions made for AIM-120A’s on the F-14D in that same thread, granted the AIM-120 was designed specifically to slot where a Sparrow would even if someone hadn’t dug that up. While I have not found the specific report if it exists (because usually when they move money around they have to say where it went) of AMRAAM funding being shifted to LANTIRN - but I can more than happily link you to MULTIPLE GAO reports (Government Accountability Office) that mention specifically that the AMRAAM was being developed for use on the F-14, and that it was being developed to replace the AIM-7s specifically, that a contract for hardware was amended to the initial contract to Hughes for the F-14 and 15, and even a 1994 report that literally states “The Navy does plan to add the capability to launch the Advanced Medium Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM) to F-14Ds when their computer software is updated. (AMRAAM is the Defense Department’s newest air-to-air missile.)” which is right above a chart showing what weapons the F/A-18C, F-14A/B with an upgrade would have had, and the F-14D (once software upgrade had been made) specifically noting that it would have AMRAAM capability. All on the GAO’s public website where only information that has been cleared for release is posted. Straight up government resources that point to it - which is what you guys like to use right?
And more importantly - is far more than anything that exists for the F-15C ‘Golden Eagle’ as far as I can find, I haven’t even seen anything that goes beyond a discussion and haven’t yet even found a report on it much as internet basically going ‘they said it’d be too expensive to upgrade old airframes’, and at least on par if more than the Yak-141 - which was unarmed but you gave it the weapons it was intended to have. I am more than fine, I’m even happy - to have the F-14D premium be the ‘completely as built’ aircraft - as it should be. But you guys have fudged things in the tech tree before regarding ordnance, and you all recently talked about missiles and all being part of balance and whatever. A number of nations have 13.0-13.3 advanced ARH missile slingers in Arcade, after you moved the F-16ADF up to 13.7 - for reasons well beyond all reason and understanding - the US does not have anything with this capability at that range other than the AV-8B+ - limited to 4 and is a lower performance attack aircraft compared to mainly pure fighters sporting 4 or even 6x ARH missiles.
Between the fact we can back up ‘it was supposed to have them’ with actual documentation, between all the other aircraft in tech trees that stretch things in different ways, the gaps the US has in BR’s and what other nations have, etc - there is literally no reason you can’t, or shouldn’t, just give us our damn F-14D with freaking AMRAAM’s.
2 Likes
When war Thunder was made, there were plenity of aircraft themed games and simulators.
Why did War Thunder “need” to be made, then…?
WW2-only and built around a Squad System which will be ditched for WT’s RB modes.
Engine, assets, sounds, will be unified with War Thunder’s: unlike Enlisted, which still has old sounds and modules from 2014, etc.
The whole grinding and matchmaking mechanics will be different too.
All in all, it’s turning War Thunder into an absolute warfare hub with no need to have 13 different games installed. War Thunder aims to become the ultimate grounded-arcade / simcade warfare platform to exist.
shame its another copy paste though of the premium not even getting aim120
My educated guess is that it will be top tier and placed (at least temporarily) after the Sabra. It would help round out Israeli top tier. A Greek Leo 2 maybe? (As it would be an easy addition for them to make)
then why is naval getting it then???
naval EC is always filled with bots and is the perfect environment where “the expoilts” happen the most
It’s still a win in my book.
I thought it might be an anti air that Isreal desperate needs,
Also any plans to change your name now that we got it?
I really hope that’s not the case. I don’t want to grind the whole of the Israeli tree for one Greek vehicle, Greece should have it’s own line.
Which is way I’m praying it’s a premium.
Yea both in ground and air it has 4 instead of 5 so Greece/Cyprus can get the fifth line, except the SpAA that should go to the SpAA line
Most sub trees no longer have an entire line.
1 Like
@Smin1080p_WT wouldn’t by any chance be able to get any confirmation on this? If it’s possible. Thanks. :)
1 Like
Pls don’t pray to be a premium, I can’t stand 3/3 Greek vechicles to be premiums, I don’t want to give more money to the snail
Better than it being a one off last tier vehicle that has nothing to do with the line it’s in
Naval will be irrelevant till advanced ships come
I agree on that except if it’s a SPAA
1 Like
If the tree-based version of the F-14D (which will not be a major upgrade of the Super Tomcat 21) is unable to use a maximum of 8 AIM -120s with a triple pylon—just as in real life, where tests of this missile on this aircraft were successful and compatibility was confirmed—then at least create a separate F-14D Super Tomcat 21 in the future pls.
