That’s fair enough. For me I feel like giving planes real equipment they might not have carried in real life is not a huge deviation since they’re engaging in combat that is not historically plausible anyway. If a situation arose where F-5Cs were going to be fighting (more) modern planes, you can bet the operators would equip them with the extant F-5 flare pods. It’d be one thing if they were allowing you to somehow equip radar missiles on a Sabre or something else that is impossible without a completely fictional refit.
I’d personally like to see more freeform plane customization, especially if there was a way to tie BR to weapons alongside plane performance. The way you could swap guns and turrets out in WoT was one of the more interesting things about the game imo, but I’m pretty happy with what WT has got going on since as you said, it gives them a reason to add more variants, which is neat just for the variety of liveries if nothing else.
For what it’s worth, as someone who owns the F-5C I wouldn’t mind having it flareless at 10.0. It’d club 9.0s but there’s already a bunch of stuff battering them around, that’s a different discussion. It’d be nice variety to have a flareless F-5, and would make the event F-5A actually worth something because as it stands it a worthless copypaste without even premium status.
1 Like
Even if you prove it with billions of documents, they will never remove it because they don’t want another D.C Ariete situation
1 Like
Cause he really hates balance
1 Like
The point is that putting it at 9.7 means that it will be fighting 8.7 in a full downtier.
How the hell did you misunderstand my wording there.
Obviously I understand that the F-5C sees 9.3 frequently, I’ve played the 104A enough to know that.
1 Like
There are no ahistorical loadouts on the definition that matters: Is the aircraft confirmed via manual, photograph, or military report of carrying the weapon. If so it gets the weapons for the BR it’s at.
1 Like
Yes, down to something like 9.7 where it’s a good competitor to the T-2
Did I miss something? That’s what I’ve been saying in this thread, 9.7 would be a good spot for a flareless F-5C.
Oh but they chose not to!
Again, the T-2 does this already with better missiles and a bit less sustained maneuverability. What’s needed is a lot of decompression, but until then 9.7 is a good, competitive spot for a flareless F-5.
And do you dominate 9.0/8.7 in full or partial downtiers?
Yes? Thought so. That’s my point.
The solution here is, once again, decompression, but since that’s not likely soon given the current state of top-tier, (F-4EJ at 11.7, F-16As at 12.0, 16Cs and F-15s at 12.3, and SU-27s/Gripen/M4k at 12.7) the second-best solution is what we have now…
I understand that Decompression is ultimately the best option, but why cause MORE compression by lowering the F-5C to 9.7.
It’s not causing more compression when there are already comparable, if not better, aircraft there.
Except it totally would??
It’d be like adding another AIM-9L slugger to 10.3 that constantly faces jets w/o flares. Yes it adds compression. What the hell is an F-86F-25 supposed to do against an F-5C? How about a MiG-15Bis or MiG-17?
Yes, it would be “Balanced” at 9.7, but it would absolutely add yet another threat that subsonic Korean era jets can’t do jack against.
Not to mention that pushing it to 9.7 just to remove ONE ahistoric system would also mean moving down to rank VI again, and that would DEFINITELY cause some very angry players who bought it when it was rank VII.
A bit less? Bruh T-2 has garbage sustain. It is like a mig-21
4 Likes
A small sacrifice for the entire BR range.
So just like F-5C.
Mig-21S has identical sustained to F-5C BTW.
You’re nuts if you think that statement is remotely acceptable for gameplay and balance
1 Like
That is completely wrong.
1 Like
It is not.
It creates a really stupid dichotomy where a plane is only viable in a full down-tier and then ruins the matchmaker when it gets a full down-tier.