These actions taken for gameplay sake and its unlikely that Gaijin will change anything.
Best get to use to it.
The T-2 is 9.7 BR…it is not 10.3 BR. It is two steps below the F5C and has two 20G missiles. It’s worst BR match-up is to 10.7 which means it does not fight MiG-23ML/A/D fighters. It also doesn’t fight MiG-21 Bis variants.
At 9.7 BR it has a reasonable chance of being able to out-pace a decent portion of the planes it faces and faces a lot less all aspect missiles. Removing the F5Cs flares would just make it a free kill for anyone with all aspect missiles and a faster plane…and would ultimately result in it being reduced in battle rating.
1 Like
I see the vehicles themselves, and the game how that plays, as two separate parts of one whole.
I am not playing War Thunder because I want to play a 1:1 real historical scenario every battle I play, but I’m also not here only for the gameplay of the game. I am here out of an interest for the vehicles that existed in history, and how they were.
I do not expect the game to put M4A2 (75mm) Shermans vs Tiger II:s, or even for the Maus to only face WW2 tanks, but I do expect the vehicles themselves to be depicted “correctly”.
War Thunder itself describes on its about page to be just that:
Over 2,500 highly detailed aircraft, helicopters, ground vehicles, warships and other combat vehicles crafted carefully from historical documents and surviving sources.
Just because the gameplay does not strictly adhere to history, does not mean it (history) should be thrown out of the window for everything else.
The entire draw of the game is the vehicles themselves.
If nothing else, giving vehicles only what they were actually equipped with gives the game an excuse to add more, different variants of said vehicles, with different equipment, rather than just mashing them all together into one.
Why have different versions of vehicles, and multiple nations, if we’re just gonna mix and match configurations of them and put them wherever.
We may as well be playing World of Tanks, where you get one Panzer IV and you get to choose which gun to use, rather than have all the different and interesting modifications of the vehicle as separate entities… No thanks I say to that. I would rather have historically interesting vehicles, than mangled messes.
I don’t think of the ahistorical modifications as unfair, premium or not. I just care about the history of the vehicles themselves.
To me, if everyone got “such perks”, it would be even worse than only a handful getting them.
A very defeatist way to look at things.
It is indeed unlikely that Gaijin will change - but it is not impossible if enough people stop silently accepting the current status quo, and instead ask for things to be better.
1 Like
Sure then create a thread that includes every single ahistorical things in this game, find enough people to raise against Gaijin and maybe you can change something, dont forget to talk about F104’s,Yak-141 and other vehicles aswell.
But just because you dont like some ahistorical loadout that was done for the sake of gameplay balance doesnt mean majority will not like and agree with you.
1 Like
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
Why…?
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