Dev Server Feedback Update - Heavy Cavalry

[ShermyDragon]

This. If you want a premium F-14B, ask Gaijin for a premium F-14B. Don’t be complacent as they butcher the F-14D’s systems and weapons to make an inferior patchwork premium out of it…

[CofCof]

@ShermyDragon

copy-paste F-14B.

But that’s what the aircraft is it’s an F-14B fitted with a new radar and IRST it was never intended to carry the AIM-120. It was phased out before the AIM-9X came into service; it only ever carried the AIM-9M, AIM-7MH and AIM-54C+.

[Tech-Tree-F-14D]

Exactly.

[Ronne5591]

I know.
But devs dont matter
All we can do is ask to make balanced rocket, not this 2 Mach trash

[tpom]

Hello Smin,

When you have a moment to spare, I wonder if you could check or clarify something for me.

Do you know (or could you check perhaps?) if devs actually intend to add gunpods to the Yak-130 as the bug report I made for them was accepted but only as a suggestion, and they have not appeared since on the dev server during the time it has been open.

It would be kind of sad if it didn’t recieve them since the under fuselage gun has extremely limited ammo count.

This was the report, Community Bug Reporting System

Cheers

[CofCof]

@Ronne5591

in game A = C

No men

[ShermyDragon]

I don’t know how to break it to you, but an entire new radar set on a BVR-reliant aircraft isn’t “copy-paste” and it should be using better weapons than the F-14B (I mean, hell, Gaijin should’ve given both it and the F-14D’s AIM-54C+ missiles the option for the block 60 thruster by now…)

I also never asked for 9x, or 120. All I want is proper AIM-54C+ and AIM-7P implementation Gaijin seems to be digging their heels in to avoid.

[Ronne5591]

[Ronne5591]

@ShermyDragon

All I want is proper AIM-54C+

Same like Facour

[Pilot23045234]

@CofCof__

Isn’t it unique? It simply eliminates the need for the missile’s coiling system, as it is no longer necessary

Bruv the missile is also called AIM 54 Sealed/ECCM.
We could have had a rival to the F14 IRAF, whith phoenixes that are still slower but more resistant to Chaff and ECM in the future.
What we got is a copy paste F 14 B that still has AIM 54C that are modeled incorrectly

It's time for the AIM-54 Phoenix to receive an overhaul

poll [image] This is the month of the Tomcat, and with the introduction of the F-14D to War Thunder, it’s time for the F-14 family to receive long-overdue AIM-54 overhauls. There are currently several valid, accepted, and outstanding bug reports concerning the AIM-54 Phoenix that would provide meaningful improvements to its performance. Especially, it is imperative that the F-14B and F-14D receive these AIM-54C fixes, as they would significantly improve the missile’s effectiveness and better …

@CofCof__

But it has always been clear that the F-14D is nothing revolutionary, it is simply an F-14B with improved electronics, radar and IRST. The big change is if the gaijin adds the ST-21

No it was not. Just look at the almost 2 k posts and Polls on this forum about the F 14 D.
The B was a significant upgrade when compared to the A.
The expectations were similar for D when compared to the B.

@CofCof__

What is historically inaccurate

It can carry AAM it could IRL.
But its missing its AIM 7P (debated but it apparently could carry them)
And its AIM 54 C+ features the characteristics of another AAM that is not modeled correctly.
So now it has the correct missile but is capabilities are nowhere near reality.

[CofCof]

Stop using a manual that says it could be fitted with an AIM-7P and turning that into a “it must carry the AIM-7P”, and Gaijin has already replied: even if the AIM-7P is added, the datalink won’t work on the F-14. And yes, I think the AIM-54C should have the proper pulse-Doppler capability, but that would increase its BR, so let’s just leave it as it is

[Smin1080p_WT]

@tpom

Hello Smin,

When you have a moment to spare, I wonder if you could check or clarify something for me.

Do you know (or could you check perhaps?) if devs actually intend to add gunpods to the Yak-130 as the bug report I made for them was accepted but only as a suggestion, and they have not appeared since on the dev server during the time it has been open.

It would be kind of sad if it didn’t recieve them since the under fuselage gun has extremely limited ammo count.

This was the report, Community Bug Reporting System

Cheers

Hey. Its possible these could be a future addition. But no news currently on that.

[Iron_physik]

@Smin1080p_WT

Nuclear Escalation

We’re closely following the game mode and are aware of the balance problems at hand. To help improve balance, we have weakened the AA of the “Red” team by replacing the grouped Pantsirs with 1x Pantsir + 2x Tunguskas. We’ll also improve the efficiency of the “Blue” team by improving the Aster missiles autopilot, which currently struggles with intercepting the Kh-31 missiles. Apart from that, all short-range SPAA including the ItO 90M now use their search radars as well when firing, which allows for a broader range of ARMs to be used against them.

We also plan to fix some SAMs like the HQ11 and SPYDER not using their capability to launch missiles at multiple targets at once. Ships will also be developed to be able to engage incoming missiles and fight back.

Next week, we’ll cover the Abrams, so please keep an eye out on the forum for another post.

We want to thank you all for your continued constructive feedback.

but the issue was not Pantsir, it is the BUK sites that cause massive balance problems because they prevent NATO from making usage of altitude as you cant kill BUKs as easily as you can SAMP-T sites

[Ronne5591]

It shouldn’t be this way

[CofCof]

@Ronne5591

Same like Facour

No AIM-54 will ever be the same as a Fakour it’s an Iranian design, with an Iranian engine and an AIM-54A seeker, so

[ShermyDragon]

Have you read literally any of the hundreds of posts about how Link-16 capability was added in 2003, making it compatible with AIM-7P’s datalink? No? Congratulations, you’re on the same level of reading comprehension as Gaijin there…

Also, if 54C+ pulse doppler would increase BR? Good!! It’s almost like that’s what the BR system is for!!!

[Jess-88]

So I’ll pay the same price for a premium worse because players asked to get a different flag on the aircraft?

Thanks players…

[Ronne5591]

We can argue all night
We need @Smin1080p_WT commend about this.

[CofCof]

@ShermyDragon

Also, if 54C+ pulse doppler would increase BR? Good!! It’s almost like that’s what the BR system is for!!!

The thing is, this is a game where the planes are artificially nerfed to fit them into a BR range, and I personally prefer my F-14 at 13.0 rather than 13.3 or even higher

[CofCof]

@ShermyDragon

Have you read literally any of the hundreds of posts about how Link-16 capability was added in 2003, making it compatible with AIM-7P’s datalink?

Send it, prove that they were all fitted out and that, strangely enough, a plane due to be retired was upgraded I’m waiting