That wouldn’t be bad actually. BP vehicles should only include vehicles that would not really fit well into the game or that, when added, don’t take away famous vehicles from a tech tree.
A P-51K or a P-51D from the RNLAF wouldn’t be a bad BP vehicle, as both of their P-51 models are almost exactly in game already, and can be played in other tech trees. The Dutch skin would be the most important change, but wouldn’t take anything away from the ‘main game’, like ex.g. the EBR’s did when they became BP instead of Tech tree.
Thats not a harrier:
Do you have proper documentation of this (reprogrammability on the racks and not individual pylons) and has that aspect of it been highlighted for the devs to see it?
If it’s among the large bookworks passed to them I’d imagine they’d skim over it and miss it.
Sort of, not explicitly for the AV-8B / DITER specifically, but MIL-STD-1760, JDAMs and similar internal components.
Technically if you wanted to go further there is also the UAI briefing, that supports functional commonality. (this is attached to one of the open reports in question as supporting evidence )
https://www.iqpc.com/media/6729/4428.pdf
https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/IBcaw9Ue88xM
I hope that’ll be enough for them then!
Still not clear why it was removed. If it were a balance reason then it’s up to them I suppose. Just like it getting 9L’s instead of 9M’s (a decision I’m fine with btw to put it at a better Br)
Where is my Harrier II Pre-order Gaijin?
]:(
I really hope this means the Revenge class will come soon, they are Super Dreadnoughts based on a lighter Queen Elizabeth class
What probably happened was that either a decision was made for balancing purposes to remove them.
or
They looked up what connectors were available for the TER-9/A (Basic TER) or BRU-42/A (Improved TER), and noticed the lack of MIL-STD-1760 compatibility. Without realizing that the BRU-70/A (Digital ITER) existed, since that provided the capability, though the D-ITER is fairly recent having been deployed operationally in 2016 it is somewhat understandable. So there won’t be many available references to them in documentation.
Whatever it is, I hope it gets corrected
Now you jinxed it. Hahahahahah but still I love the battlepasses. This one had the PBM-5A which is a lovely addition.
hey @Smin1080p_WT is there any particilar reason you guys chose Barham in her jutland configuration?
because no offense but this right here was a conscious decision HMS Barham like most of her sister was extensively refit later in her life. She could have been added in her 1941 configuration and this right here wouldnt even be an issue.
The event is themed around Barhams participation in Jutland.
Other versions of the QE class remain possible in the future. As the first version to join the game, it’s appropriate it’s an early configuration as it’s also an event vehicle.
Well, I didn’t include them on the list based on Smin’s statement that each nation would get a Rank VI vehicle over the next two updates. If we assume that includes Dance of Dragons which isn’t out yet, then Tennessee is what the US is getting.
It had nothing to do with whether or not the US needs something to compete, which I would agree they do.
It is worth noting that the US BBs lack of survivability is identified as a bug (the barbette armor just stops working), so hopefully that will get fixed soon.
So it seems after this we got 1 more event then it’s the “Dreams Come True” event on the 31st.
Then it should be either 1 or 2 more before the classic Winter event.
So in theory the next event is aircraft based.
I hope this mean HMS Royal Oak or even HMS Revenge are closer to being added. I thought they skipped over them when HMS Hood was added
add it to the other 20,000 P-51’s i have haha
errrr… I don’t get it. Explain it to me like I’m an idiot (because I am)
Clearly not enough. Also need more Shermans.
